Flowers48/m1758
I agree with you that there is virtually no distinction between a foot rest and foot stool. Both are manufactured to anticipate the weight of the user. If the Postal Service is claiming that there is a distinction then the union should request some type of definition to show that distinction. The parties should also rely on the manufacturers flyer or safety instructions that came with the footrest/footstool that might define what the equipment is, or is not, supposed to be used for. Further, if there is a distinction, then I would put the onus on the Postal Service that it is their responsibility to train employees, usually through service talks, what that distinction is. If they haven't done that, then I would also argue that the Postal Service has a responsibility to adequately and visibly mark any equipment that may be inadvertently used for the wrong purpose. And what was it again that your union was doing for you?
As for whether or not these circumstances are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination - without having seen the wording or language of the discipline it would be difficult to say. Applying your weight to the footstool, regardless of your size, could merely be a description of how the event happened. The Postal Service may "regard you as" an individual with a disability, even if you would not otherwise meet the definition of "an individual with a disability" under the Rehabilitation Act, if you can show that their inference to your weight was an inference that your weight interfered in your ability to perform the essential functions of your position.
So I was rather surprised that some of those that responded to your post automatically assumed that the problem was with your weight. You didn't say that you actually had put too much weight on it - only that the P.O. accused you of putting too much weight on it - which they also claim was not what it was designed for. Initially I don't see this as an EEO complaint, I see it as the P.O. covering their hiney for not properly marking their equipment to ensure the safety of its workers, and the union failing again to......well you don't need me to tell you what you already know.

THANK YOU POSTAL EMPLOYEE ADVOCATE, I APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND YOUR ADVICE.

GLEN BECK,NEVER MIND UR COMMENT DESERVES NO ANSWER, YOUR COMMENTS TELLS ALOT ABOUT YOU...AND IT,S NOT GOOD......

Beware Glen Beck wanabee, what goes around comes around for sure.

/m 1763

What exactly is the difference between scheduled leave and unscheduled leave? I figured by filling the proper 3971 and supporting documents, that the leave is scheduled, especially since po is aware well in advance.
Thank you for your time.

Good luck with that. Around much of the country, Managers find WAYS to DICK employees around by getting it all called "Unscheduled". Don't think it is 'not important' either...as they ALWAYS use it to dictate their concoction they love most...Letters of Warning and termination. Bunch of conniving, unethical, and indignant parasites feeding off the greed abundant en masse in the Higher Ranks.

/m1768 Scheduled is all leave requested and approved in advance. Use 3971 in triplicate, get it signed under 'received', and pull back 3rd copy. Or hand it to boss with a witness who'll admit it later. If they dissaprove, they must give you copy and it must say why not. You can call an hour before your shift, ask to be off and if they say OK, it's scheduled. Call in sick 3 days in a row and each will be unscheduled. Call in once and say you'll be out for 3 days, days 2 and 3 are scheduled.

Unscheduled make it easy to be disciplined so dispute any you get.

FMLA call offs and appointments are also considered "scheduled"

god I hope she is out working off the big butt she says is not a problem.

It is a HUGH problem to those who have to look at her.

Never understood why fat people think others are picking on them. STEP AWAY FROM THE TABLE, PUT DOWN THE DONUT, and go for a walk instead.

Dont you just love it...I'm fat a lazy BUT EVERYONE ELSE IS PICKING ON ME...BOOO WHO

When I was @ the REC we had those standard issue red desk chairs. There was one keyer who was built like a linebacker (& she wasn't even one of those 'pretty fat girls'). She broke several chairs, and then several other larger people were complaining about the chairs being too small = it seemed they have a max weight limit of 200 lbs.

Mgmt ordered Big chairs. The linebacker refused to use it because she said she wasn't over 200 lbs (and yes, she kept breaking chairs).

... on the Flowers48 saga. I'm trying to picture the scenario: the only think I can envision is tha she works on SPBS, since she fell onto the conveyor.

We had high stools w/ a ring around the base that was the 'footrest'. We all used to (improperly) use it as a step when climbing up. Most of the rings were wiggly & loose, and we had some pretty hefty people up there, esp on T2 (you know, the ones who are huffing by the time they hit that 4th step?).

I can't imagine that her EEO claim has much weight (pardon the pun). This whine is right up there with the time some of my crew filed a grievance because not all of the keying stations had working radio jacks.

Chalk up another win for an employee based on discrimination because of her religion, race, and age. Complainant had met with her supervisor and postmaster (both named as RMO’s) as well as the agency’s Workplace Environmental Specialist to try to resolve the issues within her facility. The Workplace Environment Specialist and postmaster concluded that “the parties needed to work these things out amongst themselves in the office.” The AJ found that “essentially (they) washed their hands of the situation, and sent a clear message to Complainant that she was on her own.”
In my opinion this demonstrates the futility and cynicism of even having a Workplace Environmental Specialist. Apparently their only job function is to suppress legitimate complaints of discrimination (which, by law ADR Specialist can’t do). As a result of this complaint, the AJ ordered that the agency require the RMO’s, including the Workplace Environmental Specialist, are to be “provide(d) EEO training on Title VII and ADEA requirements, specifically including religious accommodation; race, age and religious discrimination and harassment; and the proper process to follow after receiving a complaint of discrimination and/or harassment.” What? Apparently Workplace Environmental Specialists aren’t required to have this training before they encumber a position that is supposed to resolve workplace environment problems. Just another useless $70,000 a year management position at a time when the Postal Service is in dire financial straights.
My editorial opinion aside, I just wanted to share with the skeptics that EEO complaints of discrimination can be won. So raise your glasses and offer a toast as this is a win for everyone.

workplace environment specialist? The po and their team of 2 to one security people are resposible for all the hell in the po. They have decoys on the floor and satellites and have an entourage of people watching and waiting for something to happen. And a lot of times they are the ones making employees lives hell. Anyone who complains about anything is usually treated badly one way or another.

I might as well throw in on this forum since I can lay some ideas on anyone who is like minded.
I used to EEO any postal manager who looked crosseyed at me. I did so , in many instances just to put them on the defensive to leave me alone and move on. I would wait until they had to wear themselves out with "postal paperwork/homework" and then I would withdraw the EEO after the post office had wisely given some higher salaried joe-college sociologist, the job security of researching "allegations." When the EEO came back for either inervention/one-on-one, or farther along, I simply dropped the case. I don't wish to discourage anyone from filing but I learned that the inconvenience and personal committment that I was able to delegate to a postal manager who required an attitude adjustment would suffice, and that was always enough for me.
I was able to quickly realize that all EEO's, legitimate or "almost," still have merit, in that management fools will build a case for you in the form of retaliation or anything that appeared to be.
I would simply relate to the person I had EEO-ed, that I "appreciated their retaliation because it gave me a much stronger and irrefutable case."
It didn't take managers long to look the otherway when I came around and to "get busy with other important issues."
That is all the hell I ever wanted anyway.
I encourage everyone who needs to help a postal manager with their attitude, File an EEO! You can always drop the damn thing and they can always "kiss your ass."
You see, management never knows how far you are personally willing to go once you call their bluff. Just be willing to go all the way with the fools who think YOU are bluffing.

Dave Kirtley

Great Post Dave!

Edited by author 11-07-2009 06:23 AM
/m1777 Above almost every post on these boards. The fact is...the fools stumble all over themselves to try to JUSTIFY or somehow condone a flagrant action/attitude...that in the end you caused enough backlash to settle the score. I never doubted EEO was all about getting even, never ending in any monetary or other worthy justice.

COULD YOU IMAGINE IF EVERY EMPLOYEE TREATED PATHETICLY BY A STOOGE MANAGER WAS TO FILE AN EEO EACH TIME...EVERY TIME?

The whole EEO system is a FRAUD. They never had me fooled for a minute and I told them so. No matter how you try to slice they are paid by the USPS. Directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter!