Make your own free website on
Home | Calendar of Events | LTS | Meeting Minutes - Present thru Jan. 2006 | News | Field Organizational Changes 2013 | Convention | Down Loads | About NAPS | Links | Contacts

National Association of Postal Supervisors


NAPS Leg/Reg Update - August 19, 2014

Senate and House Lawmakers Seek One-Year Moratorium on Mail Processing Plant Closures

Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are mounting a campaign to add a rider to a government funding bill that would block the closure of 82 mail processing plants, slated to begin in January 2015.  The moratorium would assure the continuation of First-Class overnight mail delivery to areas served by the plants and prevent the slowdown of mail across the nation, while Congressional efforts to achieve postal reform continue.

NAPS supports the moratorium and opposes the scale of the closure initiative because it will so significantly erode service and slow down the mail.  For a complete list of the 82 facilities planned for closure, click here.

CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN: Please click here to send a message to your House Member to ask for their support of the one-year moratorium.


Here's why this is so important.

Last Thursday a bipartisan group of 50 Senators, in a letter to Senate appropriations leaders, called for the inclusion of a one-year plant closure moratorium in the stopgap spending measure that Congress is expected to consider in September, when they return from the August recess.  (For a list of the 50 Senators co-signing the letter, click here.)  The spending measure is called a "Continuing Resolution" or "CR."

“This one-year moratorium will give Congress the time it needs to enact the comprehensive postal reforms that are necessary for the Postal Service to function effectively into the future,” the Senators said in their letter.  During the past two years, various obstacles have sidelined efforts to pass postal reform legislative proposals in the Senate and the House.

House lawmakers also are preparing a similar letter to call upon House appropriations leaders to include the processing plant moratorium in the House version of the CR.  Last Friday, a bipartisan group of ten House members asked their colleagues to join with them in co-signing a similar letter calling for the one-year moratorium on plant closures.  Their "Dear Colleague" letter seeks co-signers to a letter, similar to the Senate letter, that will be sent to House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) and Ranking Democrat Nita Lowey (D-NY), seeking inclusion of the one-year processing facility moratorium in the House's version Continuing Resolution.  

The ten House Members seeking the moratorium included five Republicans and five Democrats: David P. Joyce (R-OH), Peter King (R-NY), Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ), Michael Grimm (R-NY) and House Democrats Ron Kind (D-WI), Peter A. DeFazio (D-OR), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA), Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) and Matt Cartwright (D-PA).

TAKE ACTION: Please contact your House Member to urge adding their signature in support of the plant closure moratorium in the Continuing Resolution.

To electronically send that message to your House Member, click here.

THANK YOU for taking this important action.


Bruce Moyer
NAPS Counsel

NAPS Leg/Reg Update - June 25, 2014

House Panel Adds Saturday Delivery Mandate

The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday added a rider to a government funding measure mandating that the U.S. Postal Service continue to provide Saturday delivery service.  NAPS supports the preservation of Saturday mail delivery.

The Serrano-Latham amendment added the six-day mail delivery mandate to the House version of the FY 2015 Financial Services and General Government bill.  The amendment passed by an overwhelming voice vote. 

Numerous members of the House Appropriations Committee from both parties spoke in support of the Serrano-Latham amendment prior to the vote.  The action represented a significant setback to those who favor moving the nation's mail delivery to a five-day schedule, including House postal oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, and the White House. 

arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"When the Financial Services and General Government legislation was introduced last week, it did not contain the longstanding rider mandating the Postal Service to deliver six days a week. The language had been included in the annual appropriations bill since 1983. But a significant lobbying effort by Saturday delivery proponents in support of an amendment by
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), the ranking member on the subcommittee, and Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA), succeeded in restoring the language to the bill. 

Arguments in support of the Serrano-Latham amendment included:
-- The adverse impact of five-day delivery of Social Security checks and pharmaceuticals upon senior citizens and others;
-- The loss of tens of thousands of Postal Service jobs, including those held by veterans, triggered by five-day delivery;
-- The negative impact on businesses through the delayed receipt of mailed payments; and
-- The lack of any savings (because USPS is "off-budget") that precluded any added funding to other entities in the spending measure.

In the Senate, the six-day language also was included on Tuesday in the Senate's proposed version of the same funding bill. 

These House and Senate developments create a high likelihood that the Congressional mandate on six-day mail delivery will continue into 2015, particularly as action on comprehensive postal reform in both chambers remains stalled.

Thanks to all NAPS members who contacted their House Members on the Appropriations Committee to urge adoption of the Serrano-Latham amendment.


Bruce Moyer
NAPS Counsel

NAPS Leg/Reg Update - February 6, 2014

Senate Committee Approves Postal Reform Measure

A Senate panel on Thursday approved sweeping bipartisan legislation that would overhaul Postal Service finances and operations, as well as broaden the personnel appeal rights of non-supervisory managerial employees.

By a 9-1 vote, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a substitute version of S. 1486, the Postal Reform Act, offered by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). The measure now goes to the full Senate for approval.

Today's Senate committee action represents a substantial step forward for the Postal Service, postal customers and NAPS members. While further changes could be made on the Senate floor, the legislation represents marked improvement over a House postal reform bill approved in committee last July. That measure, H.R. 2748, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), still awaits a House floor vote.

What the Senate Bill Will Do

The postal reform bill approved by the Senate committee on Thursday will provide greater financial stability to the Postal Service through a series of measures designed to increase revenues and achieve savings. It will reset the USPS retiree health pre-funding schedule to a more affordable 40-year arrangement. It will provide the Postal Service with greater rate flexibility to collect more postage, as well as permit the refund to the Postal Service of overpaid CSRS and FERS monies. It also will authorize the Postal Service to establish an exclusive health plan for postal employees and retirees. The integration of health plan benefits with Medicare coverage under that plan will provide the potential for large savings.

Also, the Senate measure will require the Postal Service to maintain current delivery service standards for the next two years and prohibit the Postal Service from closing or consolidating mail processing facilities during the same period. It will permit the Postal Service to move to five-day delivery only when total mail volume drops for four consecutive quarters below 140 billion pieces, a development projected to not occur for at least five years. (Mail volume now stands at a quarterly rate of 158 billion pieces.) There are additional provisions; a summary of the Carper-Coburn substitute bill is here.) Postal employee groups are likely to push for revision of a contentious provision, authorizing the Postal Service to renegotiate retirement benefits for newly hired employees, when the Senate bill comes to the floor.

MSPB Appeal Rights for Non-Supervisory Managerial Employees

The Committee's action today in extending MSPB appeal rights to non-supervisory managerial employees came through an amendment, proposed by Sen. Mark Pryor (AR-D) and supported by NAPS, that grants appeal rights over adverse personnel actions to approximately 7,500 EAS employees, who currently may only appeal such actions through an internal USPS process. (Adverse actions include removals, suspensions of more than 14 days, reductions in grade or pay, and furloughs of 30 days or less.)

Postal supervisory employees and postmasters already have MSPB appeal rights over adverse actions through a 1987 law, but a 1990 federal court decision excluded non-supervisory personnel from coverage. NAPS last year began work with Sen. Pryor and Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) on legislation (S. 686 and H.R. 1431) that would fill the MSPB coverage gap and assure due process rights to all managerial employees, including those in professional, technical and administrative positions.

Additional Protections for Postal Management Groups

In an initial markup session of the legislation last week, the Commitee also approved a separate amendment by Sen. Mark Begich (AK-D) that both clarifies the consultative process between postal management organizations and the Postal Service, as well as the differential in rates of pay between employees in the clerk and carrier grades and supervisory and managerial personnel. The Begich amendment assures that the Postal Service may not eliminate or modify managerial and supervisory benefits outside of “pay talks” between postal management associations and the Service, which take place at times already defined by law. The amendment also applies the supervisory managerial compensation differential to both pay and benefits; currently, the differential is only applied to pay. These changes were supported by NAPS.

Guns in Post Offices and Parking Lots

Also at today's markup, a contentious amendment by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) that would allow the concealed carrying of firearms inside postal facilities, was defeated. NAPS opposed the amendment. An amendment by Sen. Mark Begich (AK-D) that permits individuals, where allowed by state law, to carry firearms in their cars in USPS parking lots, was approved on a 15-0 vote.

When Will the Senate Bill Reach the Floor?

arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"Final Senate floor action on the postal bill approved today is not expected to occur for at least several weeks, and likely after the NAPS Legislative Training Seminar, March 9-12, in Washington. That means that NAPS members once again will play an important role in educating Senate and House lawmakers and their staffs on the pressing need for constructive Congressional action on postal reform.


Bruce Moyer
NAPS Counsel

NAPS Leg/Reg Update - January 27, 2014

Senate Panel To Consider Postal Bill on Wednesday

Senate lawmakers are preparing to mark-up postal reform legislation at a meeting of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs this Wednesday, January 29, at 10 am ET. (You will be able watch the mark-up live here.)

The Committee will work from a new version of S. 1486, the Postal Reform Act, originally introduced by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) last year. Carper and Coburn are the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which has jurisdiction over the Postal Service.

NAPS is closely reviewing the terms of the new version of the postal legislation, which Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Coburn released last week as a "discussion draft." The two Senators are expected to file their new version later Monday, and amendments to the bill by several other committee members also are expected to be filed.

Late last year Chairman Carper cancelled three scheduled meetings of the committee to mark-up S. 1486, after sufficient support for the measure, as then written, failed to materialize. Some Democrats and Republicans were dissatisfied with various parts of the legislation, and NAPS raised a series of concerns, along with other postal employee groups. These developments triggered more recent negotiations between Carper and Coburn, resulting in the substitute version they will bring to the committee for approval on Wednesday. (A section-by-section review of the new Carper-Coburn substitute is here.)

Whether a sufficient majority of support for the new measure now exists remains unclear. Additional amendments at Wednesday's mark-up are likely to be offered by several Senators, including Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), who wants to extend Merit Systems Protection Board appeal rights to all EAS employees, including 7500 postal employees who remain uncovered.

In summary, the new Carper-Coburn substitute would:

-- Reset the USPS retiree health pre-funding schedule to a more affordable 40-year arrangement.

-- Allow the Postal Service to renegotiate retirement benefits for newly hired employees, creating a two-teired retirement system, with lower benefits for new hires. (This is problematic in a number of ways, and NAPS and other employee groups are opposed to this approach.)

-- Authorize the Postal Service to establish an exclusive health plan for all employees and retirees, integrated with Medicare coverage, to achieve cost-savings.

-- Provide for a refund of overpaid CSRS and FERS monies under postal-specific actuarial assumptions.

-- Authorize an arbitrator to take into account the financial condition of the Postal Service in binding arbitration of disputes between the Postal Service and labor unions.

-- Establish a pre-funding arrangement for the Postal Service's payment of its unfunded liability for future workers' compensation payments, estimated at $17 billion. (NAPS is also taking a closer look at this provision, establishing a second, prefunding obligation for the Postal Service.)

-- Require the Postal Service to maintain current delivery service standards for the next two years.

-- Prohibit the Postal Service from closing or consolidating mail processing facilities for two years.

-- Establish procedures for the Postal Service's use before deciding whether to discontinue a small, rural post office, largely reflecting the "POST" plan adopted by the Postal Service in 2012.

-- Permit the Postal Service to move to five-day delivery when total mail volume drops for four consecutive quarters below 140 billion pieces (it's now at 158 billion pieces).

-- Require the Postal Service to convert business delivery to centralized or curbside delivery; and move incrementally to conversion of residential delivery to centralized or curbside delivery.

-- Require the Postal Regulatory Commission to issue advisory opinions within 90 days on Postal Service proposals concerning market--dominant products.

-- Provide greater rate flexibility (and revenue) to the Postal Service by making permanent the recent emergency price increase and changing the cap on future price increases for market dominant products to CPI + 1 until 2016; and require the Postal Service to establish a new rate system, in collaboration with the Postal Regulatory Commission.

-- Expand Postal Service authority to offer non-postal products in ways that allow it to better its financial position and capitalize on its own infrastructure.

-- Authorize the Postal Service to ship wine, beer and distilled spirits.

-- Reduce the current 11-member Postal Service Board of Governors to nine members and eliminate the Deputy Postmaster General from the Board; provide for the appointment of the Inspector General of the Postal Service by the President subject to Senate confirmation; and limit members of the Postal Regulatory Commission to two terms.

-- Establish an independent advisory commission to provide guidance on the long-term solvency of the Postal Service and innovative thinking; require a Postal Service plan for long-term solvency; require the Postal Service to designate a Chief Innovation Officer; and require the Postal Service to issue a plan for reducing the number of area and district offices.

-- Restructure government-wide the Federal Employee Compensation Act and reduce FECA benefits for totally disabled enrollees to 50 percent of the pre-disability wage upon attainment of full retirement age, along with other provisions, as included in postal reform legislation approved by the Senate in April, 2011.

-- Provide for changes in federal real property asset management, as included in legislation previously approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in July, 2013

Postal Rate Increase Takes Effect Today
Postage rates on first-class letters and most other mail will rise by 3 cents today to help the Postal Service recover millions of dollars it lost during the economic recession, as a result of a decision of the Postal Regulatory Commission last month. That price jump represent a 4.3 percent increase, on top of the customary 1.7 percent adjustment for inflation.
In the meantime, the Postal Service, bulk mailing industry, and Senate lawmakers each would alter the PRC decision further. Both the mailers and the Postal Service went to federal court last week to contest different parts of the PRC decision. The mailers want to roll back any emergency price increase, while the Postal Service wants to make it permanent. (The Postal Service sought a middle ground and made the price increase temporary for two years, long enough to recoup the money lost during the recession.) Senators Tom Carper and Tom Coburn, in their new postal reform proposal, would also make the price increase permanent. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), whose state is a major paper producer, is expected to introduce an amendment at Wednesday's committee meeting that would strip the rate provision from the bill. NAPS supports rate flexibility along the lines proposed in the Carper-Coburn bill.


Bruce Moyer
Counsel to NAPS

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

NAPS Leg/Reg Update - September 25, 2013

NAPS Leg/Reg Update - September 25, 2013

Senate Hearing to Focus on Postal Health Care Benefits

The Senate postal oversight committee on Thursday will hold its second hearing in two weeks on postal reform legislation, S. 1486, introduced in early August by the panel's top Democrat and Republican, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).

Thursday's Senate postal hearing will focus on the Postal Service's top legislative priority -- authorizing USPS to establish a postal-only health plan for its active and retired workers, one better integrated with Medicare to receive federal subsidies and bring down premium costs. Donahoe is expected to suggest at Thursday's hearing that the cost savings delivered by a USPS health plan, especially through Medicare integration, would offset the costs of retiree health benefit pre-funding and literally take pre-funding concerns off the table.

Officials from the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, and the Government Accountability Office, which has reviewed the USPS health plan proposal, are expected to respond to those claims at Thursday's hearing.

You can watch Thursday's hearing live, which starts at 10 am ET, here.

Last week's Senate postal hearing focused on postage rates and revenues, in the lead-up to today's announcement that the Postal Service will seek Postal Regulatory Commission approval of an emergency postage increase, a move opposed by mailers.

In a letter released today, USPS Board of Governors Chairman Mickey Barnett described the “precarious financial condition” of the Postal Service and the “uncertain path toward enactment of postal reform legislation” as primary reasons for seeking price changes above the CPI increase. He also indicated that the price adjustment above the CPI increase is necessary in order to ensure that the Postal Service will be able to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the type and quality which America needs.

Postal-rate increases are capped at inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. That would mean an allowable increase of about 2 percent for implementation in January. The Postal Service, under the 2006 postal law, may seek a higher rate increase beyond the CPI in "exigent" circumstances, when approved by the Postal Regulatory Commission, which has 90 days to approve the action. In 2010, the Postal Service submitted a request for an exigent rate increase of 5.6 percent, far above the CPI cap, that would have brought in more than $3 billion annually. But the mailers fought that increase in court and it was derailed.


Bruce Moyer
Legislative Counsel to NAPS

It's Only Fair ... Tell Congress to Pass the Postal MSPB Appeal Rights Bill

Ask your Senators and your House Member to co-sponsor the “The Postal Employee Appeal Rights Amendments Act of 2013”.
Contact your Senators to cosponsor the legislation (S. 686) by clicking here.
Contact your House Member to cosponsor the legislation (H.R. 1431) by clicking here.

This will take less than 60 seconds!


WHY? This important legislation will guarantee all U.S. Postal Service management employees the right to appeal any significant personnel action taken against them to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB is is an independent quasi-judicial agency in the Executive Branch that hears the personnel appeals of federal employees and guards the federal merit system.

Right now there are roughly 7,500 management employees covered under the USPS Executive-Administrative Schedule who lack MSPB appeal rights. All these employees are NAPS members or are eligible for NAPS membership. They may only appeal adverse personnel actions through the USPS-internal ELM-650 appeal process, without the right of independent review by MSPB. This situation is due to a narrow court interpretation of a 1987 law that first extended MSPB appeal rights to postmasters and postal supervisors, despite Congressional intent to give all EAS employees the right of MSPB appeal.

The identical Senate and House bills introduced by Sen. Pryor and Rep. Connolly will revise the law to make it clear that all EAS employees are entitled to MSPB appeal rights.

It's time to restore Congress' original intent and assure that ALL postal managers, supervisors and postmasters have the right of third-party review of adverse personnel actions by the neutral Merit Systems Protection Board.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) currently is the only sponsor of S. 686.
To find out whether your House Member has cosponsored H.R. 1431, click here.

Recent News

 NAPS/USPS Consultative Meeting Minutes

December 12, 2012 @ 9 AM - USPS HQ



1.  NAPS requests an update on the current restructuring including a listing of the number of EAS employees who remain impacted – their names and locations.


USPS Response: The Postal Service had a meeting in Tampa, FL with all Area HR managers in the past week to review the current RIF process. The list requested by NAPS is only current for a short time, due to Shared Services constantly processing Form 50’s of those impacted EAS receiving new positions. USPS stated that an EAS employee may be on the impact list, but their paperwork has not yet been completed by Shared Services. Therefore they appear as impacted when in reality they are not once their Form 50 is processed.

The USPS provided an overview of the current RIF process. The impacted list overstates the number of impacted EAS. This results when a unit loses one position, but other EAS in that office, by default, also become impacted. On November 6th approximately 1,964 General RIF Notices were mailed to potential impacted EAS; where 415 were Veteran Preference eligible with the ability to bump other EAS.

November 19th was the VERA irrevocable date, in which 197 EAS took the VERA. The USPS will be mail Specific RIF Notices on January 2, 2013 to those remaining on the impact list. March 8, 2013 is the effective date of separation. Round 3 of the RIF will be RIF assignments that will be done on March 9 for those left in the competitive area. This is not a directed reassignment, but a RIF assignment under RIF rules.

 In August there were 3,092 potentially impacted EAS. After the RIF Avoidance ended on November 6 only 1,964 EAS remained impacted. Originally, 409 competitive areas were involved in the RIF, now there are only 296 Competitive Areas with impacted EAS. As of December 1, 2012, a total of 1,133 EAS are potentially impacted in the following USPS Areas: Capital/Metro – 98; Eastern 114; Great Lakes -128; Northeast – 365; Pacific -165; Southwest -149; and Western -114. Be advised these numbers are overstated due to multiple incumbents.

As of December 8, Shared Services current list of potentially impacted is down to 1,046. NAPS was reminded that when a competitive area is no longer impacted by RIF, meaning all impacted EAS have been placed, then EAS Level-17 supervisor positions will be posted to all career employees, including craft, to apply.


2. NAPS had previously requested to be provided with an electronic file from HRSSC that would provide a summary of vacancy postings on a regular basis in conjunction with posting cycles. The listing could be by state or District. NAPS would like to know if this request can be accommodated as NAPS HQ does not have access to the USPS Blue page.

NAPS asked if Shared Services has a summary report of all vacancies that are posted each week and can NAPS get it by state. If yes, can NAPS get a list of the summary?


USPS Response: NAPS can access to USPS Liteblue to check all postings in eCareers. However, USPS HQ will investigate to see if such a report exists.


3. NAPS would like an update on the restructuring process in the NDC’s. We would like a breakdown of vacancies for each of the NDC systems’ facilities.


USPS Response: The implementation of the NDC restructuring started on August 25, 2012. There is always movement so the vacancy numbers will change. In addition, when doing an eCareer search for vacancies the results only show the first 100 at a time. A person must continually search to spool through the vacancies. USPS suggests employees search vacancies by state rather than nationally by position.

NAPS was provided with a summary of the number of vacancies currently at the NDCs


4. NAPS members have been advising us that there is a significant increase in the number of parcels presented for delivery. In DOIS, there is functionality to account for time used for delivery of high volume parcels, accountable mail and full coverage mailings, but the Postal Service does not allow the additional workload to be input into the DOIS system.

NAPS would like to be able to report to the field the current rationale that does not provide access for additional workload (over base numbers) to be entered into the DOIS database. NAPS members believe that the office performance is better than is stated as a result of the current situation. Because of unreported volumes our members are being called to task for office performance that is lower than it would be if workload volume was recorded properly.


USPS Response: This topic was prompted at the NAPS 2012 Fall Board meeting. USPS asked if this was a national problem. NAPS asked for a meeting on DOIS and the USPS is in the process of coordinating a meeting to include USPS DOIS department personnel.

The USPS stated that any changes with DOIS will require more Labor Relations involvement since DOIS involves and impacts the NALC National contract. USPS suggests a separate meeting on DOIS to review this issue in-depth with all parties involved.

NAPS stated the issue with DOIS is a USPS Area issue and is not limited to one specific district. NAPS concern is that mail volume is entered into DOIS, but the unit is not being properly credited for the workload reflected in DOIS reports.

USPS clarified NAPS’ position that if volume entered in DOIS establishes that workload has increased, then the office should receive the work hour credit.


5. In the process of resolving the FY 2009 PFP we have identified several instances where members who work in multiple supervisory offices had filed two levels of appeals, the cases were referred to USPS HQ and one or more of the cases was resolved favorably. In the same office, in an identical goal/result situation, there were other supervisors in the multiple supervisor office who were denied a settlement. We would like to discuss how this anomaly occurred. The names of the individuals in question will be provided under separate correspondence.


USPS Response: USPS will make one final review of this particular case, but all other cases related to the FY 2009 PFP Settlement are closed.


6. At our 2012 national convention, certain resolutions were passed that mandate that certain items are brought to the consultative process. Therefore the following resolutions are presented for consultation:


a. That all EAS employees will be given due process before any disciplinary action is deemed appropriate. (resolution #43)

USPS Response: The USPS ELM 650 addresses disciplinary action and appeals.


b. That an authorized supervisory position be required on each tour that has craft employees. (resolution #46)

USPS Response: Supervisor staffing is based on SWCs and a plant ratio of 25:1 and 22:1.


c. That approved annual leave not be denied by management at the newly assigned tours or facilities. (resolution #47)

USPS Response: It is referenced in the USPS ELM as a policy that previously approved leave is honored.


d. That USPS management be mandated to give affected employees a written statement indicating the specific needs of the service. (resolution #51)

USPS Response: NAPS raised the issue of involuntary reassignments and COO Megan Brennan issued a letter on August 24, 2012 addressing the handling of involuntary reassignments.


e. That an involuntary reassignment cannot be for more than ninety days. (resolution #51)

USPS Response: NAPS raised the issue of involuntary reassignments and COO Megan Brennan issued a letter on August 24, 2012 addressing the handling of involuntary reassignments.


f. That USPS management be mandated to send copies of all PS Form 1723 issued to EAS personnel and any employee temporarily assigned to EAS positions to the local NAPS branch office. (resolution #51)

USPS Response: Nothing prevents an employee from providing NAPS with a copy of the PS Form 1723. USPS has collective bargaining agreements to provide PS Form 1723’s to unions regarding craft employees on higher level jobs for an extended period. USPS does not have the same standing for EAS. The USPS will not mandate that copies of PS Form 1723’s be sent to NAPS.


Postal Service Plans Roll-Out of New Supervisor Program

The resident officers met with USPS Vice President, Employee Resource Management, Deborah Giannoni-Jackson and members of her staff on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 for a final briefing on the preparations for the roll-out of the new Supervisor Training Program.

We were advised that at the meeting that this program would be the largest hiring of EAS employees in recent history. This fact should dispel the constant rumors and theories that there will be buy-outs for EAS employees in 2013. NAPS fully supports the efforts that have been undertaken in the Postal Service’s development of this new program and the incorporating of many recommendations that have been made by the NAPS resident officers in meetings we have held with the development team during 2012.

As the restructuring nears its’ conclusion in early 2013, Districts that have completed placement of all impacted employees will commence postings for initial level EAS positions for promotions from the craft using the new training program. Expected start it early February, 2013.

The establishment of this new program and the expected hiring of new supervisors present our local branches with opportunities to increase membership. Our NAPS executive board will be coordinating the efforts of local branches to make appearances at local training sites during the first weeks of the training program to meet with new supervisors and provide them with applications for membership.

NAPS being there at the start of the training is critical because this new supervisor training program actually promotes candidates to EAS at the start of the program. This means that individuals can become NAPS members on day one! If we do not make contact with prospective candidates/members while they are in their classroom setting, canvassing new supervisors in the field will be more difficult and will not get the same results.

Local branch officers should start to prepare for the training session by having a supply of Form 1187. At the same time, recruiters should provide the new members with a copy of Form 1188 so that they can terminate their affiliation with craft unions and save the difference between our dues and their former craft dues.

NAPS headquarters can provide local branches with brochures and handouts upon request to help the new members familiarize themselves with our organization and to take advantage of programs that we will be offering for supplemental insurance, etc.

Local branch officers should provide their contact information to provide to the new members and make every attempt to have them attend a NAPS meeting in their local branch. Local branches can order NAPS lapel pins to be presented to new members at the time that they sign up and submit their applications for membership.

There is a special incentive for signing up new members during the first quarter of 2013 (January 1 – through March 31). NAPS will be offering a special incentive for new member recruitment. During this period, NAPS HQ will be providing $25.00 NAPS gift cards to both the recruiter and the new member. This means that both the recruiter listed on Form 1187 andthe new member will each receive a NAPS gift card.

Many NAPS members have been mentoring craft employees who have been serving as 204-B’s. Help these individuals to get through the screening and application process. Identify other employees who you think would become good supervisors and encourage them to apply for the program also.

NAPS headquarters wants to ensure the success of the new training program and support your efforts to sign up new members. Let’s work together to get this program off the ground and to increase the membership of NAPS and get the vacancies that we have in the field filled with qualified candidates.


NAPS FY 2012 PES Guidance

see restructure info section for help with your PES

The FY 2012 PES System is now open for EAS employees to complete their end-of-year accomplishments. NAPS expects many of our members will express concerns that they did not receive any goals for FY 2012. In addition, members understand they are not receiving compensation for their results for FY 2012; due to the freeze in pay that was implemented by the Postal Service and confirmed through the Fact-Finding Process.

All EAS NAPS members must realize that; even though they did not participate in a goal setting process for FY 2012 and that there is no financial compensation for their efforts for the past FY, it is important that they receive an adjective rating for FY 2012.

The following section of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) describes how the end-of-year ratings control the Reduction in Force (RIF) rules doe EAS employees:

ELM 354.217

1. Performance ratings – the three most recent merit performance ratings of record received during the 4–year period before the issuance date of the specific RIF notices. Based on these performance ratings, nonbargaining employees are entitled to additional service credit towards their RIF service date, as follows:


a. Merit performance ratings are used as follows:

i. If an employee has received three merit performance ratings of record during the period, the values of the ratings are added together and divided by three (rounded in the case of a fraction to the next higher whole number) to determine the amount of additional service credit.

ii. If an employee has received at least one but fewer than three merit performance ratings of record, the employee receives additional service credit for performance based on the amount derived when the values of the ratings received are added together and divided by the number of ratings actually received (rounded in the case of a fraction to the next higher whole number).

iii. If an employee has received no merit performance ratings of record, the employee receives additional service credit for performance based on the modal rating. The modal rating is determined based on the most prevalent merit performance rating received postal–wide during the most recent performance evaluation period.


b. Values are assigned to each merit performance rating of record (or the modal rating) as follows:

i. 20 additional years of service are credited for an adjective rating of Exceptional Contributor (EC).

ii. 16 additional years of service are credited for an adjective rating of High Contributor (HC).

iii. 12 additional years of service are credited for an adjective rating of Contributor (C), Not Rated (NR), or No Score (NS).

iv. No additional years of service are credited for an adjective rating of Non–Contributor (NC) or Excluded (EX).

NAPS cannot overemphasize the importance to all of our EAS members that they complete an end-of-year narrative to ensure that they receive at least a Contributor Rating to receive the additional years they deserve based on the ELM provisions shown above.

Below, NAPS headquarters has developed some sample end-of-year accomplishment drafts that can be personalized by our members with the insertion of data that is pertinent to their specific unit/function and duties. If there are any questions, members should contact their respective NAPS Area Vice President.

Sample End-of-the Year Accomplishment Narratives

Customer Services positions, End of Year PES Summary

During FY 2012 my duties included all aspects of customer services. Along with the management team in my office, I worked to improve productivity of letter carriers in both their office and street performance. I worked to improve scanning performance for Priority Mail and Parcel Select.

I worked diligently to reduce grievance activity through compliance with the National Agreements of the respective unions and I worked closely with my employees to improve safety and morale in my office. I worked to reduce energy consumption and control work hours in all functions in my operations.

(In addition to the narrative above, review latest data for your unit and add pertinent accomplishments in work hour reduction, service performance, scanning percentages and other measurements applicable to your unit. Also add any operational changes that you were involved with during the year).

As a result of the Fact Finding decision that directed NAPS and the USPS to meet to discuss the current SWC program, NAPS entered into consultations on a review of the current SWC evaluation system and made recommendations for changes in the current SWC evaluation system.

NAPS established a work team consisting of board members, Jay Killackey, Tommy Roma, Larry Ewing and Jimmy Warden who worked with Louis Atkins and Brian Wagner in the development and presentation of NAPS’ proposals to the Postal Service.

As a result of several consultative meetings with the Postal Service, the following changes will be implemented in the SWC process effective immediately:

Revision #1: RMPO to APO - Mapping Employee Credits

Bargaining Unit employees located in Remotely Managed Post Offices (RMPO’s) will be credited using the same factors as currently used in the SWC. Mapping will follow the same business rules used for finance unit mapping. If the Administrative Post Office (APO) has stations other than the Main Post Office, the Installation Head will determine mapping (either the main office or the station responsible for managing them).

Following existing business rules applicable to current SWC calculations provides a clear and understandable

format without adding unnecessary complexity to the existing model.

NAPS Note: This proposal was made by NAPS to address the management changes that will take place with Remotely Managed Post Offices and the responsibilities that will be required for Administrative Post Offices.

Revision #2: SWC Zone of Tolerance Period

A Zone of Tolerance will be established for loss of encumbered staffing to provide the losing office an opportunity to adjust craft complement and/or acclimate to reduced supervisor staffing. The twelve month Zone of Tolerance period will only apply to the lower side of SWC ranges and for encumbered positions only. The percentage for the Zone of Tolerance is 15%. This is how the 15% zone of tolerance is applied:

When a Customer Service office evaluation result in the new SWC calculation reducing the new authorized EAS complement to a point that is below the current threshold, where a supervisory position would be eliminated, then the newly established zone of tolerance of 15% is applied. There are 40 points that separate each step (increment) of the chart that assigns an additional supervisor to a Customer Service operation.

Should a reduction of craft employees cause the office to go below the threshold for a supervisor there will be a zone of tolerance (15%). As long as the Customer Service office does not go more than 6 points below an established EAS threshold then the current supervisor staffing may remain in place for a one-year period and thereafter the supervisor position will be eliminated based on the new SWC data.

All SWC’s changes resulting in increases to staffing will be processed immediatelyfollowing current business rules. A standardized approach with well-defined business rules (keeping the supervisor in place for one additional year) will provide impacted offices and supervisory staff the time necessary to explore opportunities and adjust accordingly.

NAPS Note: This proposal was made by NAPS to address the situation where an office falls slightly below the threshold for a supervisory position. This zone of tolerance will assist in transitioning an office to a lower EAS staffing level necessitated by craft staffing changes.

Revision #3: Changing Credit for Custodians

An increase will be made in the custodian workload factor raising the factor from .50 to .75. All other business rules specific to maintenance/ custodial staffing credits remain unchanged. A 50 percent credit increase brings this employee group in line with current SWC business rules.

NAPS Note: NAPS requested an upgrade in the credit for custodial/maintenance employees due to the increased maintenance requirements and oversight that is required by local management.

Revision #4 Eliminate Work Hour Requirement for Getting Full Credit for Window Titled Clerk

All work hour requirements currently in place for earning the 1.33 window credit for employees will be eliminated. Current business rules provide additional credit only where work hour thresholds are exceeded.

Changes will provide the 1.33 credit to all clerks with window duties as part of their position description (currently 18 positions). The 1.33 credit will be applied regardless of the location of the employee or the hours worked. These changes will streamline the SWC process providing clear and concise application of credits. Clerks without window credits will continue to be credited at 1.00 points.

NAPS Note: NAPS believed that the responsibility for management oversight of window credits should not have the work hour threshold of a 20 hour minimum. Management consented to our request to eliminate the 20 hour requirement.

Revision #5: Provide Exception Credit for Multi-Station Cities / Installations

An exception credit formula will be applied to multi-station cities to provide additional SCS staffing based on the number of earned SCS positions within installations. An additional SCS position will be authorized at the Lead Finance Level for every 35 currently earned SCS positions.

This position will be used at the discretion of the Installation Head but it is expected that leave replacement will be primary. With the establishment of this staffing coupled with the Lead Clerk positions, higher level use should be reduced.

NAPS Note: NAPS recommended the development of a formula to provide additional EAS assistance in certain geographic areas to provide coverage and reduce the need for utilizing 204-B’. NAPS will work with local management in implementing this provision.

All other provisions of the SWC that are not changed by these revisions will remain in effect.

The Postal Service will be providing briefings to the field to implement the changes in the automated SWC program that is utilized to determine EAS staffing in Customer Service operations. As these changes are implemented, we will need to be vigilant to ensure that SWC calculations that are presented to NAPS in the field are inclusive of these revisions.

If any issues are identified in the implementation of the changes and new provisions outlined above, they should be channeled to NAPS HQ through our NAPS Area Vice Presidents.


NAPS Headquarters has been informed by USPS Labor Relations that Delivery and Post Office Operations have decided that Delivery Unit Optimization implementations and Post Office closures will be suspended temporarily starting Monday, November 19 and continuing through Friday, January 4, 2013.

POStPlan activities will be suspended during Thanksgiving week, Saturday, November 17 through Sunday, November 25. No community meetings will be scheduled for that week and there will be no implementation activities. POStPlan activities will be suspended during the peak Christmas season, starting Saturday, December 8 and continuing through January 6, 2013.

We have been notified by USPS Labor Relations that the SWC Moratorium that was implemented on October 12, 2012 has been rescinded. SWC criteria changes are now finalized and incorporated into the new SWC workload models. Please pass this along to your membership.

The PES System is now open for EAS employees to complete their end-of-year accomplishments. We expect that many of our members will express concerns that they did not receive any goals for FY 2012 and also they are not receiving any compensation for their results in FY2012 due to the freeze in pay that was implemented by the Postal Service and confirmed through the Fact Finding Process.

All of our EAS members must realize that; even though they did not participate in a goal setting process for FY 2012 and that there is no financial compensation for their efforts for FY 2012, that it is important that they receive an adjective rating for their performance in FY 2012.

The following section of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) describes how the end-of-year ratings control the Reduction in Force (RIF) rules doe EAS employees:

ELM 354.217

    1. Performance ratings – the three most recent merit performance ratings of record received during the 4–year period before the issuance date of the specific RIF notices. Based on these performance ratings, nonbargaining employees are entitled to additional service credit towards their RIF service date, as follows:
      1. Merit performance ratings are used as follows:

        1. If an employee has received three merit performance ratings of record during the period, the values of the ratings are added together and divided by three (rounded in the case of a fraction to the next higher whole number) to determine the amount of additional service credit.
        2. If an employee has received at least one but fewer than three merit performance ratings of record, the employee receives additional service credit for performance based on the amount derived when the values of the ratings received are added together and divided by the number of ratings actually received (rounded in the case of a fraction to the next higher whole number).
        3. If an employee has received no merit performance ratings of record, the employee receives additional service credit for performance based on the modal rating. The modal rating is determined based on the most prevalent merit performance rating received postal–wide during the most recent performance evaluation period.

      1. Values are assigned to each merit performance rating of record (or the modal rating) as follows:
        1. 20 additional years of service are credited for an adjective rating of Exceptional Contributor (EC).
        2. 16 additional years of service are credited for an adjective rating of High Contributor (HC).
        3. 12 additional years of service are credited for an adjective rating of Contributor (C), Not Rated (NR), or No Score (NS).
        4. No additional years of service are credited for an adjective rating of Non–Contributor (NC) or Excluded (EX).

NAPS cannot overemphasize the importance of all of our members to be certain that all EAS complete an end-of-year narrative to ensure they receive at least a Contributor Rating to receive the additional years you deserve based on the ELM provisions shown above.

Attached are sample end-of-year accomplishment drafts that can be personalized by our members with the insertion of data that is pertinent to your specific unit/function and duties. If there are any questions, please contact your respective NAPS Area Vice President.


NAPS inquired to the Postal Service to see whether or not employees earned additional annual leave due to the fact that there were 27 Pay Periods in 2011: The Postal Service had the below response to our inquiry:

The Postal Service's leave year calendar is different than the leave calendar used by the federal government. The Postal Service's leave year is defined as: The leave year is the year beginning with the first day of the first complete pay period in a calendar year and ending on the day before the first day of the first complete pay period in the following calendar year. The number of days in leave year 2012 is 364 days, which is 26 pay periods. The number of days in leave year 2011 was 378 days, which was 27 pay periods. In 2011, employees may have earned additional annual and sick leave due to the additional pay period.

The 2011 leave year begins January 1, 2011 (Pay Period 02-11) and ends January 13, 2012 (Pay Period 02-12) for a total of 27 pay periods. Therefore, employees may earn one additional pay period’s worth of annual leave during the 2011 leave year as compared to the typical 26 pay period leave year. For a full-time employee, the extra pay period amount will be 4, 6, or 8 hours, depending on the employee’s leave earning category; the pay period amount is prorated for part-time employees.

Although employees may earn one additional pay period’s worth of annual leave during leave year 2011, the annual leave carryover maximums will not increase for leave year 2011. Employees must use any annual leave in excess of the standard carryover limit that applies to them by the end of leave year 2011 (January 13, 2012) or they will forfeit the hours of annual leave that are in excess of their carryover limit.

Employees may also earn an additional increment of sick leave during leave year 2011. For a full-time employee, the extra pay period amount will be 4 hours; the pay period amount is prorated for part-time employees. However, there is no carryover limit for sick leave.

Definition: The leave year is the year beginning with the first day of the first complete pay period in a calendar year and ending on the day before the first day of the first complete pay period in the following calendar year.

September 19, 2012 at 9AM

USPS Headquarters NAPS Headquarters

Agenda Items

1. With the deployment of PSE clerks in Customer Services, NAPS would like the field to be advised where PSE’s would be placed in the SWC formula dependent on their work status as either window/distribution. Also PSE’s are also being utilized as custodians and NAPS would like the field to be advised what PSE custodians would be credited for in SWC.

USPS Response: PSE’s get credit based on their designation. If a PSE is designated as a window clerk and works 20 hours a week on window, they get the window SWCs credit. As for maintenance, they get .5 when designated as a Maintenance PSE.

2. NAPS has learned that Salt Lake District was not authorized a Product Information Quality Analyst EAS-17 position. NAPS would like to know why this position was not authorized for the Salt Lake District.

USPS Response: Salt Lake District did not meet the criteria for the workload to earn a Product Information Quality Analyst EAS-17 position. That criterion is based on the total number of records handled by the District Office. Some Districts, based on the established criteria, have two of the EAS-17 positions, where some Districts have none.

3. NAPS would like to receive an update on the progress of the NDC realignment.

USPS Response: The NDC implementation started on August 25, 2012. USPS HQ provided presentations to the Area Manager of Operations Support (MOS). NDC’s are now in RIF Avoidance. All upgrade positions that are being established in the NDCs are new and therefore are not encumbered.

4. NAPS would like to receive an update on the progress of the Plant consolidations and closings including a list of the facilities impacted and the timeline for changes that will take place.

USPS Response: USPS is still in the RIF Avoidance process. The USPS is continuing its review of Plants as to which ones will be consolidated or closed. That list has not yet been finalized since USPS is looking at some modifications to their original list. As for notifying EAS employees as to whether or not they are an impacted employee; Area and District HR offices are responsible for messaging this to those EAS employees.

5. NAPS is receiving reports from the field on difficulties experienced in quantifying certain types of accidents/incidents that involve non-career postal contractors and other anomalies that the EHS system does not have a question/block/response for them to be identified.

NAPS would like to meet with the sponsors of the EHS program to discuss some of the problems and concerns that our members are experiencing in reporting accidents/injuries through the EHS system. We would also like to receive a briefing on how the system is working to reduce the time it takes to develop and report accidents. Prior to the meeting NAPS will provide a summary of the anomalies that our members have found and recommendations to remedy the situation.

USPS Response: The USPS Lean Six Sigma program is in place to review EHS. A Form PS 1711 is a worksheet to assist in completing the investigation. The use of the PS 1711 is not a requirement, only a tool to assist in information gathering before entering data into EHS. PS 1711 form is being updated to address clarification on some of the form’s questions. Form PS 1711 is on USPS Blue page under Forms. There is updated FAQ’s on Blue Page that addresses questions to help in the completion of the accident/incident in EHS. The FAQs will provide information on how to handle contractor accidents/incidents. The new PS 1711 will be manually completed and that information will be used to enter into EHS.

Note: NAPS provided the USPS with some suggestions on what would make the process of completing the EHS program easier and to address some of the anomalies in the EHS program that has created difficulty in completing an EHS accident/incident. USPS took NAPS suggestions under advisement.

6. PSE employees are being used on higher level around the country. They are non-career employees and cannot be paid higher level. NAPS position is that they should not be used as acting supervisors (204b’s). NAPS requests the USPS’ position on the use of PSE employees as acting supervisors.

USPS Response: It is not a violation of any postal regulation to use PSE’s on higher-level, for example as Supervisors, Customer Services. However, USPS HQ does not recommend it. The decision to use a PSE as a 204-B is at the discretion of local management; and should be based on needs of service and circumstances. If no career bargaining employee wants to be elevated to an acting supervisor position, then local management can decide to use a PSE.

Agenda Item 6 continued:

NAPS concern is that PSE’s are being used instead of bringing in a willing titled EAS supervisor to work on their non-scheduled day (NSD). NAPS advised USPS HQ that any supervisor wanting to work on their NSD, but local management is using PSE’s instead; NAPS will have the issue moved up through the USPS chain-of-command by local NAPS officers to first get the issue resolved. If the issue does not get resolved at the lower level, NAPS HQ will make it an agenda item at the next available NAPS/USPS Consultative.

7. NAPS requested the job description and job requirements for the new Product Information Quality Analyst job. The documents were referenced in one of the letters on the recent Board Mail email that was recently sent out.

USPS Response: NAPS did receive a draft of the Product Information Quality Analyst EAS-17 position. NAPS acknowledged the receipt of the "draft" but wanted to know when a final version of the position was going to be sent. USPS will send a final version of Product Information Quality Analyst position to NAPS.

8. NAPS had an inquiry to as to why some offices were moving EAS supervisors from LDC 20 to LDC 40. What would be the reason for this change and how would it impact an office?

USPS Response: USPS HQ is unaware that some supervisors LDC operations are being changed from LDC 20 to LDC 40. Such a change would not have an impact on supervisor staffing, as that is determined by SWCs. Changing an employee’s LDC would have no impact on an operation, only how the office receives work hour allocation for budgeting purposes.


NAPS held an Executive Board teleconference to discuss the Supervisor Workload Credits (SWCs) and the 30-day moratorium that is in effect and the current RIF impact list. President Atkins stated that if a SWCs is done in an office a supervisor(s) that no action can take place for 30-days. NAPS has the opportunity to do a manual SWCs to double check the USPS SWCs. If there is a difference between the NAPS and USPS SWCs calculations, then NAPS needs to move it up to the District and if necessary to NAPS HQ to have the issue resolved. The objective is to resolve the SWCs difference at the local level. If the USPS SWCs is correct then the USPS can take action on the SWCs after the 30-day moratorium has ended.

When does the 30-day begins? NAPS position is that the moratorium would start when the impacted EAS employee is notified of the results of SWCs, then the 30-days start.

NAPS is working on getting all the names of all the impacted EAS and current vacancies. Board members did receive impact list, but it was confusing at some levels. There are SDO’s and MDO’s are on the list, but they have not been told they are impacted. There are plants that are not scheduled to close but have members being impacted.

Some board members stated that some impacted EAS are being told verbally and others have been notified in writing. NAPS was informed that impacted EAS are to be notified by the Area and District office. Board members have stated that some members are being notified in various ways.

Some Board members believe that the RIF impact list is inaccurate. Some Board members have had productive dialogue with one Area Office. However, other Board members have not received information from their Areas.

A question was asked how many positions are being eliminated nationally, by districts, and Areas. NAPS is working on getting the list of vacancies by District from the USPS. Another issue as addressed where rural carriers working as 204B’s, need to have a Form 50 cut. This Form 50 action could be creating some titled EAS to be impacted, when in reality they are not.

NAPS HQ will address this issue with USPS HQ to make sure rural carriers on higher level via a Form 50 do not impact EAS.

A question was asked if the NAPS SWCs committee has any updates. President Atkins stated that the NAPS SWCs committee has provided the USPS with some proposals. There have been numerous meetings and productive dialogue. Until NAPS receives a final proposal from the USPS regarding SWCS, NAPS is talking to USPS HQ about stopping all SWCs at this time.

It was stated that the information NAPS was promised by the USPS during our Executive Board meeting in Reno have not been received. NAPS has another meeting on Friday with the Area HR Managers. NAPS will follow-up receiving this information.

There is a concern that those laterally from plant operations into customer services are having problems learning the new duties without proper training. There appears to be no time given to train those EAS who are moving to operations they never worked in before.

President Atkins stated at the end of the teleconference that NAPS will address these issues at schedule USPS/NAPS meeting regarding cooperation the USPS promised. In addition, NAPS will ask the questions the Board has brought to NAPS HQ’s attention to get answers to the questions and clarification of the information already provided by the Postal Service

The final decision from the Postal Service from the Fact Finding was issued last Friday. I will not attempt to regurgitate the agreement in this letter. What I do want to say is that, speaking for myself, I am just as disappointed and demoralized as you are about the outcome of Fact Finding.

I share all the same feelings as you do as I don’t think we got a fair deal either! Based on Title 39, once the recommendations are made by the Fact Finding panel is submitted and the USPS makes their final decision, our Title 39 rights have been met and completed.

We have been working on NAPS’ case since last summer when we opened up pay talks. We complied with every provision of Title 39, from the inception of pay consultations right through to the first hearing ever held in 42 years of the law. So, who’s to blame? Who is going to be held accountable? Certainly blame has to be affixed because we didn’t get what we deserved!

So, let’s look back at how this started, not all the way back to 2006 when the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was enacted into law requiring the USPS to prefund retiree health benefits. Although that is where this all started, let’s just go back to the spring of 2011.

I want to start in the spring of 2011 because that’s when the APWU contract was settled. As we all know, the clerks got a 3.5% pay increase with no increases until 2013. Their COLA was also deferred. After this landmark agreement that gave clerks an average of a point .7% increase over five years, the USPS was raked over the coals by the Congress for agreeing to the deal with the APWU.

Never mind that the USPS got a two-tiered pay system and a lot of other cost savings with the agreement, in the eyes of the Congress the USPS should have paid anything. After the hearings that were held in the Congress about the 3.5% that the USPS “handed” the clerks over five years, it was pretty easy to see the handwriting on the wall that the USPS wasn’t going to easily fork over any increases to other employee groups.

As you may know, last year the NALC, the Mailhandlers and the Rural Carriers all went into pay negotiations and they are all in interest arbitration with no end in sight. The USPS may be forced by an arbitrator to give money to these unions, but if the unions succeed it won’t be because the USPS buckled-under
Now, this is the point where some of our members say, why can’t we have arbitration? We cannot have a “contract” because we are managers. Did you know that the USPS is the only government agency that negotiates (craft) or consults (managers) with their employees on pay and benefits?

The rest of the government gets their pay and benefits from the president and the Congress. The president has frozen federal pay for the past two years (and may do it again for another year) and the Congress is looking to slash benefits of federal employees too!

With everything this is and is not happening on Capitol Hill, the USPS was not about to take another pounding from the Congress by agreeing to give NAPS members a pay increase.

Now, in the middle of 2011, NAPS, NAPUS and the League were next at the table to work out a pay agreement. In preparation for our pay talks, we got input from our both executive board and members from throughout the country. After we developed all of our internal information, we hired a nationally known consulting firm to evaluate our pay versus the private sector and to prepare a comprehensive study to show the comparisons.

We had our consultants work out all the numbers taking data from comparative private sector companies that included UPS and FEDEX in the grouping. The consultants helped the resident officers develop a proposal to institute locality pay for EAS employees.

The 2010 data found that in two out of our five USPS areas our members were paid slightly higher than supervisors they were measured against and that the three other areas, our members were behind their counterparts in the private sector. Since we did not get an increase in salary in 2011, no all five areas were below their counterparts in the study group.

All of the proposals that NAPS placed forward were denied by the Postal Service. We extended the discussions in an attempt to get something out of the pay talks. After that failed, we invoked Fact Finding.

Once the Fact Finding schedule was set, we got together with our attorney, our consultants and others to prepare our case presentation. We then met with the Fact Finders and sat across the table from the Postal Service’s group of attorneys who were also armed with data that presented their position on the Postal Service’s huge deficit. After all our work in developing and presenting our facts, I believed that there was nothing more that we could have added to either our presentation or our documents to make our case more convincing.

I would like to specifically address those members who have made the point that we have touted the fact that we have a good working relationship with USPS Headquarters and that instead of presenting a comprehensive case with data that we should have just gone into the Fact Finding swinging a baseball bat. We concluded that facts would be considered more effective than bluster.
Unlike suing a car company or a pharmaceutical company where you as the plaintiff will never have to deal with that company again after the suit is settled in court, the resident officers still have to deal with our counterparts at USPS headquarters long after the Fact Finding is concluded.

With this stated, do you think that the Fact Finding panel would have made a different decision had we yelled, threatened and screamed throughout the hearing? Would banging on the tables or walking out in the middle of the USPS’s presentation made the Fact Finders give us a different outcome?

We presented our facts, along with a significant amount of valid data and the Fact Finders made a decision that was not in our favor.
A great majority of our members wanted us to go to Fact Finding. We have never gone that far before and we knew that the likelihood of a favorable outcome was a long-shot. But, we did everything we could to present our position for all of the members of this organization. We were the ONLY management association to exercise our rights under Title 39 to go to Fact Finding.

Did the fact that we were the only management association to invoke Fact Finding hurt us? Should the fact that NAPUS and the League did not go to Fact Finding make NAPS determine not to go forward? I can’t answer either of these questions. Can you?

What would our members said about the resident officers if we decided NOT to go to Fact Finding because NAPUS and the League didn’t? I can answer this question – we never would have decided NOT TO GO to Fact Finding.

I believe that going to Fact Finding was the right thing to do, and if the decision had to be made again, if it were my decision alone to make, we would be right there again. Why? Because that’s what our members wanted us to do – to take our case all the way! And that is exactly what we did.

Now that Fact Finding is concluded, what other steps do we have? Should we bring our case for compensation to the Congress? Do you think that Darrell Issa would give us a hearing for us to plead our case? Issa wants to eliminate another 150,000+ employees.

How about going to court and suing the Postal Service for 2011? Our pay agreement ended on September 30, 2010. After that date there was no pay agreement even though we continued to apply the rules of the Pay for Performance Program. We have had our attorney review the laws to determine our chances of success in filing suit for our members to get compensated for 2011 but there is little legal chance that a court would even hear the case, let alone rule favorably on the appeal.

In the last several pay agreements we have had, due to the fact that we don’t go into pay talks until after the major union (APWU) our prior pay agreements have lapsed but they were resolved before there were any payouts from the prior agreements. This time it didn’t happen and there was no pay.

These are the facts. So, what’s next?

This week we are starting the work of identifying EAS vacancies to get jobs posted and filled. As a result of our legislative success in stopping the USPS from closing 256 processing facilities and thousands of retail offices, there is now not the same need to have “landing spots” for impacted EAS employees. We hope to start by filling as many as 2,500 EAS vacancies in the coming months.

This week we will be submitting two proposals, the first is a comprehensive proposal to change the SWC program to provide better coverage in customer services facilities. We need to fill current vacancies and have the USPS adopt the recommendations that we are presenting to provide the necessary management control in post offices, stations and branches.

After visiting several Network Distribution Centers in two areas, we have completed our reviews and are ready to submit a proposal to improve the EAS staffing levels at our Network Distribution Centers across the country.

Since the USPS (not NAPS) has decided to continue to use elements of Pay for Performance, NAPS will be working to make sure the new program is more transparent and that rules are developed to keep a repeat of 2009 from happening again. It is expected that Core goals, the most contentious part of the old PFP system, are being eliminated and that there will be reliance on the Corporate and Unit scores to develop pay outcomes.

Based on the language of the final decision by the USPS, as long as the President of the United States does not freeze federal pay for 2013 we expect that we will be starting a new PFP process in less than four months.

For the few of you who are upset and contemplating submitting 1188’s to get out of NAPS, that’s your decision and yours alone to make. I don’t think it is NAPS leadership’s fault that Fact Finding didn’t rule in our favor. We did everything in our power to present our facts. So, if you want to blame the resident officers, go ahead. If you want to blame the Congress, the PMG, the Fact Finders or anyone for that matter – go ahead.

All I know is that we work hard for our members every day. We played a critical role in stopping the post office from totally eliminating overnight service and closing 256 processing facilities. Instead of people being RIF’s we will be pushing to get the landing spots filled.

Who’s preparing proposals for a new SWC and who’s trying to fix the NDC staffing and try to make the next pay system we get to work better than the last one. NAPS is!

Remember, NAPS isn’t just the resident officers, NAPS is ALL OF US. If NAPS wasn’t there, who would be?

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Jay Killackey
Executive Vice President

On June 29, 2012, the United States Postal Service rendered their final decision following NAPS invoking the Fact Finding provisions of Title 39. At the conclusion of these proceedings, our members were provided with NAPS pre-hearing brief that was filed before the Fact Finding panel during the period of June 4-6, 2012. The brief was also published in the current, July 2012 edition of our publication The Postal Supervisor.

Our positions on pay and benefits were presented by our Resident Officers, our legal counsel and consultants during the hearings. We believe that our positions on the issues were sound, valid and truly considered the current financial position of the Postal Service while presenting the need to increase compensation and maintain benefit levels for our members.

We continued our objections through Fact Finding on the Pay for Performance Program mandated by our members through resolutions at the 2010 National Convention. The Postal Service has determined that they will continue with a Pay for Performance program beginning in 2012 unless there is a continued freeze in federal pay as announced by the President of the United States.

The Performance Evaluation System (PES) that was used to evaluate and score PFP ratings, due to the objections of NAPS, has been eliminated and the Postal Service has requested that NAPS enter into consultations to replace the PES system.

Bereavement Leave, which was available to EAS employees under the provisions of the prior pay agreement, will be restored and the future governance of this leave type will be provided in the Employee and Labor Relations Manual.

The Postal Service has determined that their percentage of employer contributions to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan will be reduced by 3% per year for the next three years to bring the contributions of the Postal Service more in line with other federal agencies.

There will be changes in the accrual of Annual Leave and Sick Leave for newly hired EAS employees who enter the Postal Service on or After October 1, 2012. No current EAS employees or craft employees who are promoted to EAS positions and are on the rolls prior to October 1, 2012 will be affected by this leave accrual change.

The Postal Service has agreed to work with NAPS to identify and fill vacant EAS Positions. We are expecting that at least 2,500 current EAS vacancies will be identified and posted for application once the positions are identified, review and approved for posting.

The Postal Service has agreed to work with NAPS in the Consultative process to review NAPS’ proposals for a new SWC process to better staff Customer Service operations. NAPS has been developing new proposals for SWC and will be presenting the proposals to the Postal Service the week of July 2, 2012.

The Postal Service has agreed to a request from NAPS to apply existing criteria to determine the correct EAS grade level for the following positions:

• Supervisor, Maintenance Operations;

• Supervisor, Maintenance;

• Supervisor of Transportation;

• Managers of Transportation;

• Mail Flow Coordinator;

• Supervisor, Vehicle Maintenance;

• Manager, Vehicle Maintenance;

• Operations Support Specialist;


The Resident Officers will be reviewing the decisions more thoroughly in the next several days and will provide additional comments on this decision. We were disappointed that the Postal Service did not see fit to provide our members with some guarantees of salary increases similar to the levels of increases that were granted to the APWU in 2011.

The Postal Service’s response to our concerns during pay talks was that the agreement reached with the APWU placed a two-tier pay system in place with newly hired employees represented by the APWU receiving significantly lower pay and benefits than current APWU represented employees. Also, APWU represented employees are currently experiencing the same pay freezes that are being applied to EAS Employees.

The Resident Officers will now proceed to achieve some of the positive outcomes that were derived from the pay talks, including: The filling of EAS vacancies, an improved SWC process for Customer Service and staffing changes for EAS positions in our NDC network. We will also seek to expedite the evaluations of the positions identified above to ensure that these positions are properly graded.

I know many of you did your homework today!!!!! When I call Senator Rubio's Office, the staffer told me he has received a lot of phone calls regarding the Senate Bill 1789. So, great work. Now ask all of your family members if they would please do the same. Here are the phone numbers to DC.

Senator Nelson - 202-224-5274

Senator Rubio - 202-224-3041

Thanks for all of your help!


We have learned that there has been a delay in sending S. 1789 to the floor for deliberation and ultimately a vote. Deliberations for S 1789 were expected to start this upcoming Monday, January 23, 2012.

Now it is critical that our members contact both of their U.S. Senators and urge them to review the provisions of S 1789 and give them the following information:

Since S. 1789 was first filed, the postal unions and management associations have been working with friends in the Senate to make changes in the
legislation that would make the bill more acceptable to postal employees. We need NAPS members to become more active and to communicate with their U.S. Senators.

When you call both of your senators, please ask them to support amendments to S. 1789 that will:

1. Set strict delivery service standards. (This is crucial, because the Postal Service is planning to degrade delivery standards in order to eliminate more than half of all mail processing facilities.)

2. Allow the USPS to recover overpayments the Postal Service made to its retiree pension funds.

3. Adequately address the requirement that forces the USPS to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. (This mandate is the primary cause of the agency's financial crisis. No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which costs the USPS approximately $5.5 billion annually.)

4. Establish new ways to generate revenue, such as providing notary services, issuing licenses, contracting with state and local agencies to provide services, and allowing the USPS to offer services that mail systems in many other countries provide, such as digital services.

5. Prevent the closing of small post offices by giving the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) binding authority to prevent closures based on the effect on the community and employees.

6. Protect six-day delivery.

Our members need to start lighting up the phone lines at either the local
offices of your US Senators or at their Washington D.C. offices. Please
share this with all of your local members.

NAPS Headquarters

Not all Postal Management got pay freezes:
USPS calls this payment a ‘retention incentive’

PostCom tells…

“On November 10, 2010, the Postal Service entered into an Agreement for Retention Incentive (the “Agreement”) with Anthony J. Vegliante, Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, providing for the payment of certain annual retention incentives to induce Mr. Vegliante to remain in his position as Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer. The Agreement is effective as of November 1, 2010 and provides for payments to Mr. Vegliante of twenty-five percent (25%) of Mr. Vegliante’s basic salary in effect as of November 1,2010 and as of November 1,2011. Mr. Vegliante will be entitled to receive such payment(s) within thirty (30) calendar days after November 1 of each twelve month period as long as he remains employed by the Postal Service as of that date, to the extent allowable by law. The Agreement provides that the parties may mutually agree in writing to extend the Agreement on an annual basis for each twelve month period commencing on November 1 of each year after November 1, 2011, so that the amount ofthe retention incentive for any such future period shall be twenty-five percent (25%) of Mr. Vegliante’s basic salary in effect as of November 1 of the relevant year.”

The expired pay agreement ended on 9/30/2010. Payouts from the last pay agreement were issued to eligible employees in January, 2011. According to statute, pay consultations between NAPS and the Postal Service commenced within the 45 day period following the ratification of a contract with the largest union (APWU). During FY 2011 we were working without benefit of a pay agreement, again by statute.

In essence, we had no pay agreement for FY 2011 until such time a new pay agreement was reached. We did not reach an agreement and the USPS issued their proposal that you all saw last week.To remind you also, at the 2010 national convention a resolution was passed that directed NAPS HQ to reject any continuation of Pay for Performsnce in our pay consultations. As a result, our proposals for changes in pay during pay consultations did not include a continuation of the PFP program. NAPS objected to the lack of fairness of Core Goals. Asnyou msy have seen, the USPS proposal eliminsted Core Goals.

Once the USPS issued their final proposal, that left us with two options; either to accept their proposal or exercise our rights to request the implementation of Fact Finding. Our request for Fact Finding was submitted today (11-14-11). A formal announcement of this action should be issued tomorrow once a receipt of service is received.

 Jay K.

Naps Members,

Today we received the Postal Service’s final offer for our Pay Consultations for the next 4.5 years. We have attached a copy for your review and to share with your members. NAPS is meeting with our attorneys to proceed to Fact Finding as outlined in Title 39, USC Section 2004. Please go

Although the Postal Service’s current financial condition would lend itself to belt-tightening by everyone in the Postal Service, our organization cannot agree with the pay proposals that have been offered in light of the efforts that our members have given in managing operations and supporting the overall service goals and mission of the Postal Service. NAPS also proposed many other provisions beyond pay and benefits that were not addressed by the Postal Service. We intend to exhaust all remedies to ensure that we reach a fair and equitable pay package.

Louis Atkins




We are expecting what may be a final proposal from the Postal Service shortly. Once the proposal is received the resident officers will review the proposal and consult the the national executive board prior to proceeding. Should Fact Finding be employed for the first time, we will have ten days from the presentation od the final proposal from the Postal Service to file our appeal under provisions of Title 39.

At the outset of pay talks, both parties agreed that none of the active discussions would be shared outside of the Consultative process. This is a standard agreement that is employed in all pay talks.


To respond at once to several of the questions on this string:

Jay’s Response:

The team that has met with the USPS includes our three resident officers and our attorney. We also utilized consultants to prepare pay comparability studies.

Jay - second question. Once NAPS receives the final proposal from USPS, at what point will that final proposal be released to the membership ? Before fact finding, within the ten days of your discussion on whether to go to fact finding, or after fact finding is complete, etc.?

Jay’s Response:

We have not yet determined the timing of the release of our pay proposals depending on our need to prepare for Fact Finding.

Third question - what other avenues does NAPS have other than fact finding ?

Jay’s Response:

There are no other formal avenues other than Fact Finding.

Fourth question - What leverage or value does fact finding provide ? When the USPS gives their final proposal, it is just that - final. Why would they even consider changing their final proposal. Final does not mean next to the last proposal.

Jay’s Response:

I will not attempt to fully explain the process, but three individuals are selected from a designated listing of professionals. NAPS chooses one, USPS chooses one and the the two we selected then choose a third for the panel.

Both the USPS and NAPS present documents and testimony relative to their position in the discussion. The three member panel weighs the evidence and testimony and renders a decisioon and recommendations that are then provided to the USPS.

The USPS then must review the recommendations made by the panel and make a final decision on either reaffirming their original recommendations and offers, accepting the recommendations of the panel, or something else in the middle.

Fourth question:

I am asking the fourth question in hope you can explain why anyone would have any belief that the final proposal would improve. After a period of consultation, when provides what they state as a “final” offer”, why would you even believe they would change it (unless mandated by law)? What is the cost of fact finding. Is that a wise use of NAPS funds?

Jay’s Response:

We have not yet established a cost for Fact Finding, and do not yet have any estimates. We are exploring that now. Consider that if Fact Finding cost NAPS $100,000. That would equate to little over than $3.00 per member. I am in favor of Fact Finding as we need to make our case for a fair and equitable pay agreement even in light of the current ecomonic struggles the USPS is experiencing.


Here is the text of Title 39, Section 104 (e) that relates to Fact Finding:

(1) The Postal Service shall, within 45 days of each date on which an agreement is reached on a collective bargaining agreement between the Postal Service and the bargaining representative recognized under section 1203 of this title which represents the largest number of employees, make a proposal for any changes in pay policies and schedules and fringe benefit programs for members of the supervisors’ organization which are to be in effect during the same period as covered by such agreement.

(2) The Postal Service and the supervisors’ organization shall strive to resolve any differences concerning the proposal described in paragraph (1) of this subsection under the procedures provided for, or adopted under, subsection (d) of this section.

(3) The Postal Service shall provide its decision concerning changes proposed under paragraph (1) of this subsection to the supervisors’ organization within 90 days following the submission of the proposal.


(1) If, notwithstanding the mutual efforts required by subsection (e) of this section, the supervisors’ organization believes that the decision of the Postal Service is not in accordance with the provisions of this title, the organization may, within 10 days following its receipt of such decision, request the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to convene a factfinding panel (hereinafter referred to as the “panel”) concerning such matter.

(2) Within 15 days after receiving a request under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall provide a list of 7 individuals recognized as experts in supervisory and managerial pay policies. Each party shall designate one individual from the list to serve on the panel. If, within 10 days after the list is provided, either of the parties has not designated an individual from the list, the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall make the designation. The first two individuals designated from the list shall meet within 5 days and shall designate a third individual from the list. The third individual shall chair the panel. If the two individuals designated from the list are unable to designate a third individual within 5 days after their first meeting, the Director shall designate the third individual.


(A) The panel shall recommend standards for pay policies and schedules and fringe benefit programs affecting the members of the supervisors’ organization for the period covered by the collective bargaining agreement specified in subsection (e)(1) of this section. The standards shall be consistent with the policies of this title, including sections 1003 (a) and 1004 (a) of this title.

(B) The panel shall, consistent with such standards, make appropriate recommendations concerning the differences between the parties on such policies, schedules, and programs.

(4) The panel shall make its recommendation no more than 30 days after its appointment, unless the Postal Service and the supervisors’ organization agree to a longer period. The panel shall hear from the Postal Service and the supervisors’ organization in such a manner as it shall direct. The cost of the panel shall be borne equally by the Postal Service and the supervisors’ organization.

(5) Not more than 15 days after the panel has made its recommendation, the Postal Service shall provide the supervisors’ organization its final decision on the matters covered by factfinding under this subsection. The Postal Service shall give full and fair consideration to the panel’s recommendation and shall explain in writing any differences between its final decision and the panel’s recommendation.

Jay Killackey

Clarifying retirement incentives

The previous post, Senate Bill: Indications of the Scale of Early Retirements Expected, created some confusion regarding the types of incentives that the new bill allows the Postal Service to offer. That post was based on the Senate bill summary that I had received and comments at the press conference. The actual language of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2011 indicates that the new retirement incentives now available to the Postal Service than previously thought.

If the Senate Lieberman/Collins/Carper/Brown bill is signed into law, the Postal Service will have three potential incentives available to them in order of the cost to the Post Service.

  • VERA with no cash payment and no increase in service time – this option when offered has had a negligible impact on the normal retirement related attrition rate at the Postal Service
  • Retirement with service time adjustment – this offers a 2% increase in CSRS or FERS pension benefits over the life of the pension. For example if one assumes a CSRS high-three salary calculation of $50,000 and sufficient time to earn 60% which would yield an annuity of $30,000. Based on the wording of the bill an extra year of service would be given to CSRS or two years to FERS which would increase the the calculated annuity to 62% of high three or a $31,000 annuity. [Thanks to cynical for the example.] For someone earning a $30,000 a year pension this would equal a $600.00 annual increase in benefit. The actual benefit depends on their salary at the time of their retirement and the number of years of service that they have. size of the pension. The added pension costs could be amortized over many years so that the Postal Service would have only a small up-front cost of offering the incentive.
  • Cash payment – Currently the maximum cash incentive that the Postal Service can offer is $25,000. It does not have to offer that amount. In the past, the Postal Service has offered incentives of $15,000 and $20,000. In both cases the incentive was spread over two years to reduce the impact on the Postal Service’s cash flow. Paying the incentive over two years may have some tax benefits for the recipient of the incentive.

After passage of the Senate bill, the Postal Service will then be free to choose among these three incentives during its restructuring process. Logically, the Postal Service would offer the smallest incentive necessary to get the needed bump in retirements that it desires.

Cash payments are likely to be used when it has to reduce employment rapidly. For example, the requirement that the Postal Service close regional and area offices forces a rapid reduction in retirement eligible employees that would require cash payments to avoid RIF’s. A simultaneous elimination of multiple mail processing plants in one region at the same time would also trigger a need for a rapid reduction in retirement eligible employees.

The less generous increased pension benefit incentive would appear to make sense only in cases when the Postal Service needs to encourage employees that are already planning to retire to retire a year or two earlier. This would be most likely to occur as part of the Postal Service’s retail, processing, and delivery restructuring if that restructuring is staggered over multiple years.

The smaller incentives suggest that getting 100,000 Postal Service employees to retire early, as Politico reported, will be extremely difficult unless normal retirement rates would result in a significant portion of the 100,000 retiring anyway

the Senate bill allows the Postal Service to give employees an alternative incentive to the cash incentive. The alternative is one year of credited service for individuals in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pension system and up to two years for individuals in FERS as an incentive to encourage retirement. This provision increases the pool of eligible employees. [The italicized language added to reflect actual language of bill and not the summary that this post was origionally based on. 11/2/2012]

The pension inducement is an alternative to the cash payments. CSRS retires would see their benefit increase by 2%. FERS retirees would see their benefit increase by 2% for those under 62 and or 2.2% for retirees 62 or older. The pension inducement provides the Postal Service with a lower cost incentive than cash payments currently in the law.]

It is unlikely that the Postal Service expects or would want 68,000 employees to retire early in one round of incentives. Instead, the incentives are likely to be proposed either:

  • in two rounds nationally over the next five years or
  • on a regional or local basis as the Postal Service’s need for employees providing retail, processing, and delivery services declines as it makes changes in its retail, processing and delivery networks.

The leadership of the National Association of Postal Supervisors (NAPS) has agreed to join forces with the four postal unions representing employees of the Postal Service to designate September 27, 2011 as a day of action to Save America’s Postal Service.

Together, NAPS, the American Postal Workers Union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Postal Mail Handlers Union and the National Rural Letter Carriers Association will rally in every congressional district in the country to concentrate our efforts to build support for HR 1351, a bill introduced in the House by Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA).

“NAPS members must take decisive action to let their member of Congress know that the Postal Service, an agency who serves every constituent in their respective districts needs relief that can only be assured through the passage of HR 1351. This is the time to join with all other employee groups to get this message to our members of Congress”, said NAPS President, Louis Atkins.

Atkins added; “This is an ideal opportunity for postal employees from a variety of positions to join forces in a common effort to save the Postal Service as we know it today”.

Passage of HR 1351, would prevent the financial collapse of the USPS — without closing thousands of post offices, eliminating hundreds of mail processing facilities, delaying mail delivery, laying off 120,000 workers, cutting postal workers’ pay, or ending collective bargaining rights. It would allow the Postal Service to apply billions of dollars in pension overpayments to the congressional mandate that requires the USPS to pre-fund the healthcare benefits of future retirees.

No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which forces the Postal Service to fund a 75-year liability in 10 years — at a cost of more than $5 billion annually. Without the mandate, the USPS would have shown a surplus of $611 million over the past four fiscal years.

Unfortunately, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has another idea. Word on Capitol Hill is that Chairman Issa is blocking consideration of HR 1351.

Instead of working with the Postal Service and its’ employees, Rep. Issa has introduced his own bill that would destroy the Postal Service as we know it. His bill (HR 2309) would do nothing to correct the cause of the USPS financial crisis: It would do nothing about the pension overpayments or the pre-funding requirement.

Issa’s bill would establish a new bureaucracy called the “solvency authority” with the power to unilaterally cut wages, abolish benefits, and end protection against layoffs. Issa’s bill would also create a board that would order $1 billion worth of post office closures in the first year and $1 billion worth of facility closures in the second year. If HR 2309 is enacted, thousands of offices throughout the country would be closed.

At the same time, the Postal Service is proposing legislative changes that would authorize management to lay off 120,000 workers and that would remove postal employees from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and from federal retirement plans.
At the rallies on Sept. 27, postal employees will be asking legislators to co-sponsor and support the passage of HR 1351, the bill that would restore financial stability to the Postal Service.

The legislation already has 193 co-sponsors, including both Democrats and Republicans. Where lawmakers have already signed on, the rallies will thank them for their support and ask them to pledge to do everything in their power to ensure its passage.
Each employee group will work together at the national level to identify responsibilities for specific congressional districts, and locals have already begun designating District Leads for various locations. The District Leads will secure permits (where necessary), contact the media, and make other arrangements.

The postal employee groups have developed a common Web site to provide information about the rallies, which will be held from 4-5:30 p.m. A complete list of rally locations will be posted on the site by Sept. 16, and the site will be updated frequently in the lead-up to the march.

Visit for the latest news about the Sept. 27 rallies.

PFP 2011 
NAPS requested clarification from Postal Headquarters regarding the announcement that Postal Service officer and executive compensation would be frozen, as it relates to the Postal Service’s pay-for-performance program. Postal Headquarters stated that the USPS Awards Program for employee recognition and incentive awards which includes monetary SPOT Awards, AVP Awards, etc. will be suspended until further notice. The pay-for-performance (PFP) program pertaining to field EAS is not subject to this suspension.
Furthermore, NAPS pay agreement with the USPS regarding PFP expired on October 1, 2010. Therefore, at this time, NAPS is under no agreement with the USPS regarding PFP after FY2010.

NAPS Executive Board Teleconference Minutes
Monday, August 15 @ 4:00 PM ET
Atkins, Killackey, Wagner, Walton, Ford, Roma, Cherry, Clapp, Beaudoin, Sebastian, Elizondo, Warden, Mulidore, Dumas, Ewing, Trayer, Aceves, R. Green, Baker, Aglidian
Butts, S. Green, Wesley, Keating, Johnson
The Resident Officers briefed the Executive Board on the latest information concerning the Postal Service’s financial condition, USPS “White Papers” on taking over the employee retirement program and health benefits, the NAPS letter to the PMG on Sales and the OIG Report regarding PFP.
Louis Atkins
Atkins met with the PMG, today (August 15, 2011) along with representatives from NAPUS, League of Postmasters and the Unions. The PMG provided a review of the USPS current financial conditions, which continues to show a steep decline in First Class mail and the USPS is not seeing profitability anytime soon.
The organizations present at the PMG meeting were disappointed in that they were blindsided by the USPS release of the “White Papers” on the USPS wanting to take over its retirement and health benefits. According to Atkins, the PMG apologized for not providing a full briefing on the issues, but the information was going to be leaked out and the USPS wanted to release it before it was leaked.
NAPS HQ is not confident in the USPS being able to take over employee retirement and health benefits.
There will be an announcement from the USPS on September 8 regarding the USPS Network Optimization and what postal facilities will be impacted. Network Optimization is estimated to reduce USPS positions by 30,000 with 3,000 coming from the EAS. USPS wants to reduce postal plant facilities to approximately 175.
The USPS’ announcement of reducing positions by 120,000 doesn’t seem to add up. NAPS is going to follow up more on those numbers. PMG went to Congress to see about breaking the no-layoff agreements with the Unions.
NAPS also sent a letter to the PMG requesting that SALES be moved back to District oversight, since those in SALES work in those Districts and impact District revenue.
As for the OIG Report on the 2009 PFP it speaks for itself. Our members have been financial damaged. We need to work at making our members whole who were impacted and filed eRecourse. Our attorney is reviewing the OIG Report to determine what legal action NAPS may be able to take.
Jay Killackey
The USPS came up with “think tank” ideas when they suggested taking over the retirement and health benefits of postal employees. The Network Optimization process is to eliminate overnight service. Changing service standards will limit the number of plants the USPS needs, especially when you will have 2-day deliver standards.
There is an appropriations bill that on 6-day delivery. Representative Issa states he has jurisdiction over the 6 to 5 day mail delivery. This appropriation has been postponed until Congress returns in September.
Brian Wagner
We ensure that all information we receive during meetings with the USPS is provided to the field. There are occasions like the one dealing with the USPS concept of taking over retirement and health benefits that was mentioned at our July 5 meeting with the PMG, where NAPS asked if we could share the information. NAPS and all the other organizations in attendance were told it was just a concept the USPS was considering and they were not ready to move forward since it involved legislative changes and asked to keep it confidential. The USPS stated at the meeting it was more concerned about getting legislation passed on 5-day and CSRS and FERS overpayments.
Before we leave any meeting, we confirm what information can and cannot be shared with our membership. NAPS does not want to send out speculation by the USPS if that is all it is. NAPS did not consider the July 5 concept comments by the PMG about USPS retirement and health benefits an official briefing since it did not include any specifics.
Comments from the Executive Board
The retirement and health benefit announcement by the USPS was just a “bait & switch” tactic to get 5-day delivery. Also, the Unions won’t agree to the health benefit change because they have their own benefit plans that they make money. NAPS is doing a good job reading between the lines. The USPS retirement and health benefit concept is a smoke screen to bust the unions. A question was asked how the USPS run a retirement program profitability if they run the USPS that way.
NAPS will need to fight legislatively to stop the retirement and health benefit proposals by the USPS. In addition, NAPS must fight for the 2009 PFP regarding the OIG report. NAPS needs to look at getting members who were wronged either back pay or lump sum money.
There was reviews from some Board members on the status on the number of members still impacted by the RIF and actions to close or consolidate plants through AMPs.
Congressmen and Congresswomen are showing up at local town hall meetings regarding Post Office closings. We may see a movement on the 5-day and prefunding.
Louis Atkins thanked the Board for the help and asked if they hear from members in the field on various issues to keep NAPS HQ informed.
Telecon adjourned at approximately 5:00 PM.



Meeting – USPS Headquarters

February 23, 2011




Louis Atkins, President NAPS                                      Megan Brennan Chief Operating Officer

Jay Killackey, Executive Vice President, NAPS     Dean Granholm, VP, Delivery/Post Office Operations

Brian Wagner, Secretary/Treasurer, NAPS            John Cavallo, Mgr, Labor Relations, Policy Admin

Bob Rapoza, President, NAPUS

Charlie Moser, Admin Coordinator, NAPUS

Mark Strong, President, League of Postmasters


The meeting was scheduled to discuss a variety of issues:


Implementation of DUO and Post Office Closures:


The management associations advised the Postal Service that the guidelines that were established and agreed upon between the USPS and the management associations were not being adhered to in the field. The various steps that are outlined in the timelines are not being followed and the financial data used in decision analysis to make decisions on consolidations is not being shared with the management associations.


Both Ms. Brennan and Mr. Granholm responded that it was not acceptable for the field not to be following the prescribed guidelines and that financial data must be provided to local management association representatives for the association’s review.


USPS Headquarters recently met with the USPS Area VP’s relative to the movement forward of the DUO and Post Office process and this resulted in an apparent acceleration of the process in the field. The movement forward notwithstanding does not preclude the field from complying with the checklists.


The management organizations were advised to work with the specific Area office where there are failures in complying with the timeline. If the contact with the Area by the management associations does not result in a resolve, then the information needs to be brought to Dean Granholm at USPS HQ.


Area Meetings between USPS Area Vice Presidents and Management Association Leadership


 The management associations briefed Ms. Brennan on the fact that while a majority of the USPS Area Vice Presidents have been diligent in maintaining a relationship with field representatives of the management associations, that this was not the case with the Western Area.


Ms. Brennan stressed the importance of regular meetings in the field between USPS Area Vice Presidents and field representatives of the management organizations and advised the management organization representatives at the meeting that she would reinforce this requirement with her direct reports (USPS Area VP’s).


As a further indication of the importance of regular meetings between the management association and leadership of the Postal Service, Ms. Brennan committed that she would schedule monthly meetings with the management associations at the national level to discuss any topics that are of concern to the associations. This scheduled meeting is in addition to monthly meetings between the Postmaster General and the management associations.


Re-Delivery of Mail in the Field


The management associations brought up the point that Postmaster General Donahoe earlier this year made a statement about the continued practice of sending employees and management personnel back out to the street to deliver late arriving and missent mail.


When this practice was brought to the PMG’s attention, Mr. Donahoe stated that he did not want to see this happening in the field and that they would be advised. While we do not doubt that the word went out, it appears that not everyone in the field has decided to cease this practice.


The management organizations were instructed by Ms. Brennan to send to her the name of the District where the re-delivery of mail was still occurring and she would ensure that the practice was eliminated.


Work Service Credit Implementation


The management associations brought out a concern that Station Managers who were having their positions eliminated in compliance with ELM provisions and WSC determinations were only getting as little as 48 hours to make a decision on another assignment to choose for work.


We brought forward the agreement that we had made with SWC whereby no movement of EAS employees could be initiated until 30 days after the initial notification is given to the impacted EAS employee. Ms. Brennan responded that she would review our request and proposal to mirror the SWC 30 day and respond back to the management associations.


Recently posted Postal Service Inspector General reports - Feb 17

Please click below to view reports posted today on the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General website (  If you have additional questions concerning a report, please contact Wally Olihovik at 703-248-2201, or Agapi Doulaveris at 703-248-2286.

         Columbus, GA Customer Service Mail Processing Center Originating Mail Consolidation (NO-AR-11-005). A favorable business case existed to support consolidating the Columbus, GA Customer Service Mail Processing Center originating mail operation into the Macon, GA Processing and Distribution Center. Our analysis showed adequate space existed to support the consolidation, customer service scores were maintained, limited numbers of employees were impacted, and efficiency improved.

         Facility Optimization: Eastern Area (DA-AR-11-002). This report presents the results of our audit of facility optimization in the Eastern Area (Project Number 10YG030DA000). The U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this audit from a random sample of districts nationwide. For the Eastern Area, our objective was to identify opportunities to optimize existing real estate in the Appalachian, Western Pennsylvania, and Western New York districts.

      For the latest information, follow us on Twitter at and join us on Facebook at

ELM 415 Meeting

USPS Headquarters

February 11, 2010


The three management association requested a meeting with the USPS HQ Compensation Unit to initiate discussions under our Consultative Rights as outlined in Title 39.




Robert Rapoza, President NAPUS                                                             John Cavallo, Labor Relations, USPS

Mark Strong, President League of Postmasters                                  Kathy Lowry, USPS HQ Compensation

Jay Killackey, Executive Vice President, NAPS


John Cavallo opened the meeting advising us that this meeting was set-up to discuss the overall proposal for changes in ELM 415 that was provided to the management associations in a letter dated January 27, 2011. John stated that he was aware that there were discussions ongoing relative to the impact of ELM 415 changes on the Delivery Unit Optimization (DUO) process and that the discussion on that matter are outside of the scope of this meeting.


Questions from the management organizations:


Why was this change proposed?


                USPS Response:


The Postal Service determined to propose the implementation of this change to balance the interests of employees impacted by organizational changes as well as to address the current financial challenges of the Postal Service. In many other occupations there are no provisions for keeping one’s salary level if their job is eliminated and an employee takes a position that is in a lower pay scale.


What is the expected savings that this proposal would achieve?


USPS Response:


At the present time that information is not available but the USPS will research it and provide the information.


There is a provision in ELM 415 that makes a reference to a “reasonable assignment”. (See section f. below). The management associations want to have that term defined.


415.41 Reason for Terminating

A saved grade and/or retained rate ceases at the beginning of the pay period following a determination that the employee is no longer entitled to saved grade and/or rate retention for any one of the following reasons:

a.     A break in service of 1 workday or more.

b.    A demotion or employee–initiated change to a lower grade position.

c.     A promotion or assignment change to a rate in a grade or range equal to or above the saved grade and/or retained rate.

d.    A change in compensation of the employee, for any reason, to a rate equal to or higher than the retained rate.

e.     The employee refuses a reasonable assignment to a higher grade position.

f.     A change from nonbargaining unit to a bargaining unit schedule.

Note: This terminates nonbargaining unit saved grade and/or saved salary; however, an eligible employee may continue to receive rate retention subject to bargaining unit rules.

                USPS Response:


The representatives at this meeting can only respond to compensation issues and the definition of this term will have to be provided from another office at USPS HQ. Cavallo responded that he would get this information. 


Does the Postal Service consider that the proposed changes for ELM 415 should be an item that should only be discussed during pay talks?


                USPS Response:


The Postal Service does not believe that changes in the ELM are such that they can only be changed during pay consultations. In fact, the 2004 memorandum by Postmaster General Potter which changed the rules that are in effect today were done outside of pay consultations. 


General comments by the management associations:


 NAPS: Our organization is currently reviewing the proposal and will be developing several alternatives to the proposal that was offered by the Postal Service. It is NAPS’ opinion that individuals who seek higher level positions of more authority have to have some sense that the Postal Service will not just unilaterally eliminate the position and take a significant amount of money from their salaries.


As an example, several years ago the USPS established the position of Route Examiner Team Leader positions in each of the Districts at an EAS-22 level. These positions were deemed to be critical to the initiative of evaluating carrier routes.


The positions did their job and significant savings were realized. Then, some Districts added other responsibilities to the position taking their attention away from why the position was first established. Then, the Postal Service determined that the positions were no longer necessary.


Those individuals who stepped up to the plate and did the job then were left with no other options than to take positions, sometimes at a lower level, to secure a job. These individuals had some protection with indefinite saved salary.


Without saved salary, individuals may be less likely to compete for critical positions at higher level as the positions could be eliminated and the individual would be left with a significant financial impact


NAPS will be providing a number of alternatives to mitigate the impact to its members. 


NAPUS and League comments:


Our organizations want to reiterate that the Postal service’s position is that this is not an item that should be discussed during pay talks.


They also added their concerns to individuals seeking higher level positions only later to have these jobs eliminated and suffer significant reductions in pay. The postmaster associations advised that they would also be preparing alternative solutions for the ELM 415 proposal.


USPS comments:


In compliance with the rights of the associations under Title 39, the notification that was written on January 27, 2011 starts the consultative period. During the consultative period we welcome the recommendations and feedback of the associations. The USPS will provide full and fair review of all proposals that are submitted by the associations and provide responses to all proposals prior to making a final decision and implementing any changes that will ultimately be made in ELM 415.


Postal Service Headquarters just called to let NAPShq know that all Southeast Area districts will now report to the Southwest Area with the exception of the Tennessee District which will report to the Eastern Area and the Atlanta District which will report to Capital-Metro.  The Southeast Area office will be closed.  That is all the information we have at this time. 01/07/11, 1:30 p.m.

Injury Compensation Briefing


Your NAPS resident officers attending a briefing today relative to changes in the management of Injury Compensation programs that will have far reaching effects on a national, area and local level. As you may have been aware, positions in this field have been frozen while a review was undertaken.


There are currently 32,494 USPS employees on either rehabilitation or limited-duty assignments. An unknown number of employees currently on light duty (estimated to be 15,000). The total cost to the USPS from these groups is in excess of $6 billion dollars. 


The consolidation of Injury Compensation programs pilot will be abandoned and oversight of the new program will come under a National Health and Resource Management Program managed from USPS Headquarters.


Attached you will find a new Headquarters matrix that was provided to NAPS and a second attachment providing an initial snapshot of the District structure, which we also discussed. At the Area level, the EAS 25 position will manage the function and the EAS-21’s will require extensive travel to initiate and complete project work and to implement new processes as they are developed.  


The plans at the present are still under review and the positions and levels will be established by USPS Headquarters. The planned timeline calls for these changes to be implemented by the end of 2007 but are still subject to approvals of positions and levels.


You will get questions about the levels for the District positions, (Manager and specialists) but they have not yet been established. NAPS will be provided additional information when it becomes available and you will receive this information as soon as it becomes available.


NAPS Headquarters


Attachments: Headquarters Matrix

                     District Structure 

Route Examination Team Leader positions:


Your NAPS resident officers attending a briefing today at Postal Service Headquarters relative to the rumored elimination of the Route

Examination  Team Leader positions throughout the country. The Postal Service advised NAPS that they completed a review of the

Route Examination Team Leader positions, which total 164 positions across the country, and determined that these positions were

no longer necessary.


It was stated that the intended objectives of the positions, when they were first established, was not achieved as there were wide variations

in route examination results and that the overall results of route examinations did not achieve the desired results.


The current plans call for a single position of Route Examination, Team Leader to remain in place in the 29 sites that are in phase

one of the FSS deployments to assist in route changes that are expected to occur as a result of Flat Sequencing. In the Districts

with FSS phase one implementation, also having multiple Team leader positions; we were advised that the senior position will

be maintained. 


Out of the total of 164 positions, minus the 29 shown above, it is expected that 135 incumbent position holders will be subject to

RIF avoidance procedures. The Postal Service is now drawing up plans to make all vacancies currently available at the District

and within local commuting distance available for impacted employees through limited competition. Positions will be held in each

District for impacted position holders.


Impacted individuals will have the opportunity to elect a VERA, apply for vacancies and will have the benefit of saved grade for

two years should they opt for a lower level position. The Postal Service is currently preparing the documentation to move forward

with this plan and expects to have the process completed by November, 2007.


We will provide you with further information as soon as it becomes available.


NAPS Headquarters     

Executive Board Members,


Over the past seven to ten days, there have been reports coming from the field concerning instruction letters being issued to supervisors/managers and postmasters relative to work requirements. Some examples include; requirements to have deliveries completed by 5:00 p.m., verification of missorted DPS or identifying unscheduled absences and filing daily reports.


These written instructions include sign-off sheets which members are required to sign to verify that the instructions have either been received or read.


Several years ago, the Postal Service attempted to employ these strategies and, just as we advised our members at that time, we are now advising you that you are not required to sign documents to verify that you have read instructions that we already consider part of your assigned duties.


It is NAPS headquarters position that you are not required to sign off that you have read an instruction or have been read an instruction and we are accordingly advising you of same.   


NAPS Headquarters


eRecourse - What's Next?


National Executive Board,


NAPS Headquarters is receiving calls from the field relative to the steps we will be taking in the matter of FY 2006 Core goal results that were arbitrarily reduced by the Postal Service.   


The process of appealing changes made by the Postal Service, where reductions were made in the NPA Core Goals, is still at the local level. Individual supervisors were required to appeal the changes in their NPA results through the eRecourse process.


Once the appeal has been denied through eRecourse, to the immediate manager and then to the second level manager, there are no provisions in the Performance Evaluation System (PES) to appeal the decision further.


In the event there is a member who has filed an appeal through eRecourse, as a result of a reduction in a Core goal that he/she believes should not have been reduced, and had the appeal denied, you must forward all of the documentation of the eRecourse appeal as well as the responses from the Postal Service, through their respective Area and Regional Vice Presidents, who will in turn forward the information to NAPS Headquarters.


We expect to convene a meeting with the Postal Service to discuss these NPA issues once we receive documentation from our members in the field that indicate that Core goals were arbitrarily reduced.


NAPS Headquarters     


If you have noticed the News section is now shorter. I was asked by NAPS HQ not to copy and paste remarks made in the Members Only Forum. If you want more info on the topics listed here, you must log onto and enter the members only sections.
Sorry but as requested I have deleted the Quotes that were on this page. 

June 2004,

The Post Office is asking and encouraging, but not compelling employees to immediately repay the indicated net amt via personal check payable to the Disbursing Officer.

Taxes will automatically be adjusted when
Eagan processes the reversal in PP14. You will be able to review the adjustments on your pay stub of July 2. If an employee has not repaid the overpayment by July 5 or 6, the collection process will begin, possibly with a notice of salary offset. Because this was an admin error, there will be no debt collection hearing rights.



The actual letter follows:


PP 13 Payroll Processing Error

Recovery Process




A payroll processing error caused a duplication of the 2002 EVA reserve payout.  Anyone who received an EVA reserve payout in 2002 could potentially receive the overpayment if their payroll was processed over the weekend.  If their payroll was processed on Monday, we were able to stop the duplicate payment.  The Eagan ASC has held back any checks processed for deceased employees and will make the necessary corrections.


The following outlines the steps required for employees who received the erroneous payment.


1.  We will provide reports indicating who received the overpayment with dollar amounts, to both the Areas and the Districts.


2.  If the employee is separated, return the check to the Disbursing Officer with a memo stating that the check is overstated by the amount of the EVA payment.  Do not return checks of active employees.


3.  Employees should be encouraged, not compelled, to immediately repay the indicated net amount via personal check.  The taxes will automatically be adjusted when Eagan processes the reversal in PP 14.


4.  Employees should make the check payable to Disbursing Officer and forward to the District Finance Manager or designee.  The check should be annotated with the employees name and finance number.


5.  The District Finance Manager should appoint a single point of contact for the receipt and tracking of checks.


6.  The check amounts should be verified against the amount owed on the printout.  Checks received will be batched and submitted to Eagan at the end of each business day.  You must keep a complete log of the funds deposited by employee.  This log must be submitted to Eagan with the checks.  Eagan will use this information to clear the receivables created by the automatic adjustment.   Send the checks and log to:


                                                Disbursing Officer

                                                Attn:  EVA Recovery

                                                2825 Lone Oak Parkway

                                                Eagan  MN  55121- 9640


9.  The Eagan ASC will clear the receivables for the employees who are indicated on the list.  The District contact person will be notified of any discrepancy between the deposit amount and the receivable.


10.  The Eagan ASC will mail out the invoice for any employee who has not repaid the overpayment and handle the collection process. 



May 2004,

May 3 2004,


According to USPS comments today, we will soon be printing good news for retirees who stay on for the full FY and retire between the end of the FY and before the next raise kicks in. Therefore, it is to your advantage to get a good PFP #--more details to come as we get them.


1. Career non-bargaining unit employees who are in an EAS position or A-E postmaster position on the last pay day of the fiscal year (
September 30, 2004) are covered by the FY 2004 EAS Pay-for-Performance (PFP) program.

2. Separated employees who were on the rolls in good standing as of September 30, 2004 are eligible only for a lump sum payment equal to the amount of the lump sum they would have received had they been an active employee.
(Note: Amounts that would have been paid as salary increases are not converted into lump sum payments.)

Separated employees in good standing include retirements, voluntary separations, estates of deceased employees, and other separation NOAs except those listed below. Separated employees rated Non Contributor" or "Not Rated" or with separation NOA codes 310, 328, 329, or 346, will not be eligible for any PFP payment.
- - - - - - - - -
NAPS note: To our knowledge, Nature of Action (NOA) codes listed in last sentence above refer to employees who resign w/charges pending, are separated due to pre-appointment conditions, terminated during probationary period, or who are removed.


1. Career non-bargaining unit employees who are in an EAS position or A-E postmaster position on the last pay day of the fiscal year (
September 30, 2004) are covered by the FY 2004 EAS Pay-for-Performance (PFP) program.

2. Separated employees who were on the rolls in good standing as of September 30, 2004 are eligible only for a lump sum payment equal to the amount of the lump sum they would have received had they been an active employee.

(Note: Amounts that would have been paid as salary increases are not converted into lump sum payments.)

Separated employees in good standing include retirements, voluntary separations, estates of deceased employees, and other separation NOAs except those listed below.

Separated employees rated Non Contributor" or "Not Rated" or with separation NOA codes 310, 328, 329, or 346, will not be eligible for any PFP payment.
- - - - - - - - -
NAPS note: To our knowledge, Nature of Action (NOA) codes listed in last sentence above refer to employees who resign w/charges pending, are separated due to pre-appointment conditions, terminated during probationary period, or who are removed. Vince Palladino

If someone retires in April, 2004, they will receive nothing, as you have to be on the rolls at the end of FY--retirement would probably have to be effective Oct 1, 2 or 3.

If someone retires in April, 2005, they will also receive nothing at that point, as their increase to basic pay or lump sum will have been paid
Jan 22, 2005.

IAW CSRS Retirement Guide, Section 25, Annuity Calculation, page 14:

"251.12, High 3 Average Pay
"Your high-3 average salary is the highest pay obtainable by averaging your rates of BASIC pay in effect during any 3 consecutive years of service with each rate weighted by the time it was in effect. Basic pay for retirement purposes includes higher-level pay but does not include overtime, night differential, and military pay. The 3 years used in the average salary computation do not need to be continuous, but they must consist of consecutive periods of service. In most cases, the assumption that the last 3 years are the high-3 years is correct. If, however, you had an earlier period of higher earnings, OPM (Office of Personnel Management) will compute your annuity based on the earlier period."

So, if you work even 1 day at the higher lv, you will get the credit, although in that case, it would be minimal.

Once you become eligible to retire, you will receive an Estimate of Annuity from the Postal Services National Retirement Counseling System (NARECS). It will list the actual # of days & months in your highest salary and continue down to equal 3 yrs. It will also show you your high-3 average salary and provide an estimate of your annual/monthly annuity with & without Spousal Survival option.

If youre within 3 yrs of retirement eligibility, you can request an estimate through your personnel ofc.

We expect an answer on the lump sum issue shortly.



 the high threeits always been that waynothing new.

We have seen the flaw in this new program and have raised the issue of lump sums w/USPS Hq. It was not readily or outright rejected when we brought it up, so we have some hopemaybe theyll change their minds between now and the time you retire--we'll keep pressing.






Apr 16 2004


Good news for Managers & Specialists, Injury Comp; also Safety at Area & District offices:

The Postal Service announced their agreement to upgrade the following: (They have not yet given effective date)

District Injury Compensation Managers EAS 19 to an EAS 20 (50 positions)
District Injury Compensation Managers EAS 17 to an EAS 18 (17 positions)

Area Injury Compensation Specialists EAS 17 to an EAS 18 (27 positions)

Managers Safety EAS 19 to an EAS 20 (59 positions)
Managers Safety/Injury Compensation (combined positions) EAS 19 to an EAS 20
Managers Safety EAS 17 to an EAS 18

Additionally, the plant safety specialists will have a change in their reporting structure and will report to the district safety manager but will remain in their current physical work location in the plant and will retain their current work duties while having the flexibility to assume additional district safety work.

The Postal Service has agreed to apply their current policy of a 2% monetary increase. Again, we have not yet been given an effective date


Apr 14 2004


A USPS Headquarters ltr, subj as above, dtd April 8, 2004, has been placed on the NAPS website under Breaking News.

Included with the notice that mid-year discussions must be documented and completed by 9 pm Eastern Daylight Savings Time, June 7, 2004, is an EVALUATORS CHECKLIST FOR MID-YEAR PERFORMANCE REVIEW.





Why cant NAPS force the USPS to upgrade Labor Relations Spec?

If youre in LR, you know that no one can force the USPS to do anything (maybe the Board of Governors? Maybe Congress(?), but even Senators have tried, and they cant get anywhere. And piecemeal upgrading to us is better than no upgrading at all.

I can understand your anger/disappointment, but it is misdirected towards NAPS, as we are the only ones that have tried so far. Believe me, sometimes we get laughed at @ USPS Hq because we do go in there with a very LONG list of everybody we want upgraded. I personally have been told that I should be glad Ive been granted so many upgrades, many more than other NAPS presidents.

Injury Compensation and Safety mgrs were upgraded because they had the support of all their managers above them, including a Vice President @ USPS Hq level. Because this time NAPS hasnt been successful, You now need to elicit the support of managers above you. Are they with you, do they agree and want you to get upgraded?

On Feb. 19 of this year, in response to another msg from you, I told you that the only other alternative you have at this time is to initiate a request through channels, and gave you instructions. Although NAPS has been very successful in obtaining upgrades for thousands of EAS employees through the Consultative process, the traditional way of obtaining an upgrade is to submit your request through the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM), Chapter 2, Section 222, Request for Job Evaluation Review. Most recently, we were told by USPS Hq that at this time, these are the only requests they will accept. So, do what Injury Comp & Safety people didcontact your many friends in LR who are in the same boat as you are, & put in a request per instructins in the ELM. Send a copy to this ofc so we can follow up.

Purpose of Pay for Performance

What is Pay for Performance?
In accordance with the USPS administrative rules for the Pay for Performance program, expected to be released soon, PFP places emphasis on the organizations success through objective, measurable performance indicators. These performance indicators are measurable objectives aligned at the corporate level, functional unit, and individual level.

Key elements of the program include:

Ensuring expectations are clearly stated
 Providing periodic feedback on
actual performance compared to established targets
 Aligning objectives at
the individual level through the unit and organizational structures
Recognizing individual successes that drive unit and organizational performance upward.

PFP introduces a heightened awareness of performance distinctions, and individuals are recognized for the contributions they make to increase unit and corporate performance.

PFP enables employees to concentrate on achievements within their control and based on their line of sight in the organization. Employees learn at the beginning of the evaluation period where priorities lie, what is expected of them, and how results impact the organization.

The PFP Program is designed to:

 Provide clear
performance expectations
 Provide regular feedback on individual and
organizational performance
 Link individual contributions to organizational
 Reward sustained, exceptional performance

accountability at all levels of the organization

What is the PFP process?

Employees are evaluated on unit and corporate performance indicators as well as individual performance objectives (core requirements). The unit and corporate performance indicators are established and measured in the National Performance Assessment (NPA) system. Unit and corporate performance indicators are aligned to improve customer service, generate revenue, manage costs and enhance a performance-based culture.

Individual core requirements provide a mechanism for employees to identify their personal contributions to unit and corporate success. When determining core requirements, employees must define specific target outcomes.

Unit and corporate performance indicators and individual core requirements are established and communicated to all employees at the beginning of the evaluation period. Mid-year performance reviews offer an ongoing opportunity for feedback and recommendations for continuous improvement and are required elements of the program. An end-of-year performance evaluation review pulls together contributions to unit and corporate performance indicators and individual core requirements. This performance evaluation serves as the foundation for an annual pay action for most EAS employees.

NAPS position is that, barring unforeseen interpretations, individual core requirements provide a mechanism for employees to identify their personal contributions to unit and corporate success. Core requirements are notand I emphasize not corporate goals. EAS supervisors and managers are already responsible for corporate goals35% to be exact, so there shouldnt be any double jeopardy. The same holds true for unit goals where EAS supervisors and managers are more deeply involved and responsible for the unit goals, another 35%.

Core requirements, the last 30% of the PFP package, measure whatever the supervisor/manager does on his/her job on a daily basis. And by the way, that 30% was reduced to 24% when the Postal Service insisted on a subjective 6% for a communications goal, saying they wanted to begin changing the postal culture.

According to the process, the manager and the supervisor select core requirements from the actual daily duties and responsibilities that the supervisor controls. Once the three requirements have been selected, the goals that are set for each requirement must be fair and reasonable. A goal is set for each requirement specifically giving a target for Contributor, 6 points; High Contributor, 11 points; and Exceptional Contributor, 14 points.

At this point, because the process has had a very slow start, all involved must be careful not to set unattainable goals. How is it going to look if the goals that you set are already beyond your reach, or unattainable, at the time that you set them?

I know this has not been how it has happened in many places, but you still have time to correct this before your mid year review.

Some of our support jobs are quite unique, and it has taken a lot of work to figure out 3 core requirements that are performed on a daily basis that the manager and supervisor can both agree on. If you can only find two and none anywhere in the book, make one up--no one will want to look foolish when a bad final rating comes in and it turns out that the employee wasnt able to control the outcome of the requirement selected. I believe this PFP can and will work, as long as we get it rightnow.


NAPS pushed very hard to have the Feb. 2 Hq letter issued, and the instructions are clear
OBJECTIVE SETTING:--Core requirements are determined in an interactive discussion between the employee and the evaluator.--etc., etc.

SETTING TARGET OUTCOMES: The employee and the evaluator acknowledge that an interactive discussion has taken place...etc., etc.

If what's in the letter hasn't happened or doesn't happen, go to page 2 of ltr, first line--

"Employees who are concerned....etc., etc.

Annotate form Not discussed, ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS; sign, date it AND forward as instructed.

Update 3/10--If you are already @ the second level review & the POOM is apparently set in his old dictatorial ways, you need to go to next higher level--District Mgr--& state your reasons these goals cannot be met. This is too important to just let it go.


new Route Examination and Adjustment Team Leader positions


The previously announced new Route Examination and Adjustment Team Leader positions (April, 2004 issue of The Postal Supervisor), have been placed on indefinite hold due to an agreement recently negotiated between the USPS & the NALC, as follows:

April 1, 2004

United States Postal Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Patrick R. Donahoe and the National Association of Letter Carriers president William H. Young, have announced that the parties have reached agreement to place a nationwide moratorium on all route inspections from April 3, 2004, through August 31, 2004. This moratorium will not include those route inspections that begin prior to
April 3, 2004.

In addition, the parties have agreed on a process to verify cased mail volume for a period of time beginning on
April 5, 2004, where possible, but in all delivery units no later than April 12, and concluding on May 28, 2004. During this time frame, letter carriers will have an opportunity on a daily basis to agree upon the cased mail volume that is being recorded into the DOIS system. Any disputes regarding the amount of cased mail volume to be recorded will be resolved by a supervisor and a union representative designated by the local branch president. The unions representative will be provided a copy of the DOIS worksheet with the cased mail volume totals for each route at the end of each workday.

The national parties are continuing their discussions regarding a comprehensive approach to the issues related to delivery services and letter carriers as agreed to in our transformation memorandum.

Patrick R. Donahoe
William H. Young




Q:  What is a lead supervisor and what are they suppose to do?

A:   There is no such thing as a "lead supervisor". If you are told otherwise then contact our branch president.


Q:    Will there be an early out for EAS this year?

A:    Retirements under VERA is being offered throughout the country, presently only to those being affected by a RIF.


 For new info on early retirements log on to for up to date info.


Q:  What plans does the Postal Service have to help Maintenance SMOs and MMs salaries stay above the craft employees they supervise?

A:   If the Postal Service wants to attract the best ETs into management, they must improve the pay for maintenance EAS, either by increases or by upgrades. NAPS is still requesting upgrades to go into effect 11/29/03, when the ETs are upgraded.


Q:  When an EAS non-exempt employee is on a higher level detail and must work 6 days a week is he entitled to overtime?

A:   If an EAS non-exempt employee is on a higher level detail to an exempt position, the employee will remain eligible for time and one-half pay for overtime work.  Similarly, when a special-exempt employee is in that same situation the employee will remain eligible for additional straight time pay. In accordance with the EAS pay policy issued 8/25/99 (pay agreement) which can be found on the website.





Q:  How do you report abuse and harassment?

A:   Discuss this with our local President (Rosa); then the NAPS Area VP, then the NAPS Regional VP, and the to NAPS Headquarters. In order for NAPS to help correct the problem you have to let your NAPS reps know the specifics the Ws who, what, where, when, why.