Edited by author 09-13-2009 12:36 AM
uniform catalogs come to us at the plant. and I have mailed my brother c/o his station in another state when he moved and I didn't know the new address

/m1194 Not all crafts. They're still hiring rca's and promoting rural carriers to regulars.

I wonder what health insurance most postal employees are using in their retirement? I'm thinking Blue Cross Blue Sheild(Basic).

Lopez, I stuck with my HMO that I had for the last 25yrs of my employment. The rates are actually going down next yr by $24 per month. And their service is excellent. The only problem is if I move out of the area where I currently live the insurance is longer valid, and I'd have to find other coverage. Shouldn't be a problem for me though as I have no plans on moving.

My son is a carrier in a small town and he was told today that he would be RIFfed because the man junior to him is the union steward, and therefore, "untouchable".

Have you heard about this clause in the NALC contract? That being a union steward exempts the junior man from being RIFfed?

Karen /m1209 -- RIFed? Nobody is being RIFed. Do you mean transferred?

For purposes of excessing and involuntary transferred, the steward is considered to be the senior carrier.

He was offered three choices:
* a transfer to the clerk's side (there are two openings)
* some vague opportunities for transfer within a 500 mile area of his home
* or to resign.

Guess it's called excessing now, but having a retired postal worker for a husband, and his parents retirees from the USPS also, the idea that the steward is protected is a new one on us.

Oh, my, when did the union sell out their loyal employees?

Karen /m1211 -- It has always been called excessing, at least for the 34 years I have worked for the post office. The rule about protected the steward is also at least that old. I am surprised by the option of transferring to a clerk position; the flow has generally been in the opposite direction.

This is all covered by Article 12 of the contract. Article 12 was written many years ago when the unions negotiated together. Since they no longer do that, and Article 12 affects all crafts, it has been agreed to leave Article 12 alone. The bottom line is that the "sell out" as you call it, probably happened when your husband and his parents were still working for the post office.

If this were a private company, there would be no choice: if they no longer needed your son, they would just fire him. There would be no looking to find him work elsewhere. Instead of being annoyed at the unions, you should thanking them for at least trying to keep him working.

To egark,

Thank you for your straight forward answers to my questions.

Needless to say, if the Article 12 doesn't affect you or someone you know, one may never know about it at all. Obviously, no one in our family has ever had to deal with it before. Now we do.

As for the transfers to the clerk side, it is only because two people have retired that there are any openings at all. We live in a small town and job options are minimal at best, so it is disturbing to be facing such an upheaval in one's life. My husband transferred here 15 years ago when his BQ position was eliminated after 10 years - there again, Article 12 was not invoked and the terminology used was "rif". It's all semantics.

As for the silver lining in this dark cloud of upset, you are right: at least my son has some options open to him. And, yes, they were provided by the unions, which overall, serve a majority of their members very well. Such is life.

Thank you, again, for taking the time to clarify the situation for us. Now, we will go forward and deal with it squarely.

I started in the post office in 1972 and the contract was new in 1971 there has never been any kind of RIF or lay off. Your statement "15 years ago when his BQ position was eliminated after 10 years - there again, Article 12 was not invoked and the terminology used was "rif"." just does not hold water, if you still have your form 50 look at it.

to read the contracts go here:

http://www.apwu.org/dept/ind-rel/sc/ircba.htm

http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/index.html

Why are you arguing semantics when the real issue here is that a junior man is saved from excessing because he is a union steward and a carrier senior to him is being excessed in his place?

My in-laws retired from the USPS each with 37 years of service, my husband retired with 34 years of service, and I left after 10 years on the LSMs and OCRs because he had to transfer. In the combined history of this postal family, we have all seen excessing, which is nothing more than job elimination,in one form or another. What we had never experienced was Article 12. No matter what, some employee, usually the one with little or no seniority, pays the price for the excessing. I experienced it when the LSMs were eliminated, and my husband 15 years ago - he also started in 1972. Does the word change the result? No.

When my husband's BQ job of 10 years was eliminated, along with the entire department of Quality Control, he was facing returning to the workroom floor as a junior clerk (with 20 years service). He chose to take the transfer that he had sought and was awarded. There was no second job for me, so I resigned from the service. The PO up here didn't have OCRs yet.

I'm not looking for an argument. I was looking for information and egark was kind enough to provide me with it. I shall keep the links you send me for future reference.

End result: My son with take the transfer to the clerk side and not look back. He comes from a long line of clerks and supervisors, and I am sure he will find his niche in the service, too.

Have a nice day!

If you want the whole scenario, here it is:

Junior carrier is an unassigned regular
My son is a T-6
POM says the unassigned regular must be excessed
Unassigned regular is a union steward
Move up the seniority line to my son...
Oh, BTW, the PTF carrier is off as an OIC for 3 months
So much for 7 years of service.

Karen "excessing" is article 12 and other articles!

Are they excessing T-6's or a regular carrier?

The levels should be separate.

Maybe you need to go to a Union meeting and voice your concern.

One other question, Why are you fighting your sons battle?

Your son should go to maintenance no matter what that is the future of the post office besides delivery.

Okay - Article 12 is excessing. Got that.

WHAT ARTICLE COVERS THE ISSUE OF A JUNIOR CARRIER BECOMING A "SENIOR CARRIER" BY VIRTUE OF BEING A UNION STEWARD. GIVE ME SOMETHING TO SEE IN WRITING, PLEASE!

No, I am not fighting my son's battle. I have time to do research while he is at work. He is working with his union steward, who is telling him mngmt cannot do what they are saying they will do. My son regularly attends union meetings for his local, and he was told at the last meeting about the the steward being protected.

My son is a T6 carrier. The postmaster is saying she has to cut the "unassigned regular", who happens to be junior to my son - BUT also the union steward for the carriers. Therefore, the steward becomes the "senior carrier" and my son is faced with losing his job.

There are no maintenance positions open in this PO. They have one man, who is a subcontractor.

It's Article 17.3:

While serving as a steward or chief steward, an employee may
not be involuntarily transferred to another tour, to another station
or branch of the particular post office or to another independent
post office or installation unless there is no job for
which the employee is qualified on such tour, or in such station
or branch, or post office.

Thank you!