what is your integrity worth?

August 2019August 2019

What Is Your Integrity Worth?What Is Your Integrity Worth? page 4page 4

page 3page 3

The Postal Supervisor (ISSN 0032-5384) is printedmonthly, with a combined September/Octoberissue, by the National Association of Postal Su-pervisors (NAPS), 1727 King St., Suite 400,Alexandria, VA 22314-2753; 703-836-9660; fax,703-836-9665; website, www.naps.org; generale-mail, [email protected]. ©2019

Periodicals postage paid at Alexandria, VA,and additional mailing offices.

NAPS members receive The Postal Supervisoras part of their membership dues. Members notreceiving the publica-tion on a regular basisshould notify theirbranch secretaries. Non-member subscriptionprice: $25 per year.

Submissions—Articles submitted forpublication should promote the welfare ofNAPS and its membersin accordance with Article II of the NAPSConstitution & Bylaws.The NAPS resident offi-cers reserve the right toedit all articles, as wellas decline to publishsubmitted material.Branch officer articlesmust be not more than350 words. Send all arti-cles to NAPS Secretary/Treasurer Chuck Muli-dore at [email protected].

Reprint requestsand other correspon-dence may be ad-dressed to Karen Young; phone/fax, 540-636-2569; [email protected].

High-resolution photos may be e-mailed to [email protected]. Please includeyour non-USPS e-mail. NAPS neither assumesresponsibility for the contents of the articlespublished herein, nor does it necessarily agreewith the opinions expressed. Moreover, opin-ions expressed by an author do not necessarilyreflect the opinions of the author’s branch.

Advertising—Advertising inquiries shouldbe directed to Karen Young; phone/fax, 540-636-2569; [email protected].

The publication of any advertising hereindoes not necessarily constitute NAPS endorse-ment of the products or services offered.

Postmaster—Please send address labels,clipped from undeliverable copies, along withUSPS Form 3579, to The Postal Supervisor, 1727King St., Suite 400, Alexandria, VA 22314-2753.

August 2019, Volume 110, No. 8

www.naps.org

Objective

The objective of the Asso-

ciation shall be to pro-

mote, through appropriate

and effective action, the

welfare of its members,

and to cooperate with the

USPS and other agencies

of the federal government

in a continuing effort to

improve the service, to

raise the standard of

efficiency, and to widen

the field of opportunity

for its members who make

the Postal Service or the

federal government their

life work.

FEATURES

16 May Consultative Impact of emergency closure of Pittsburgh NDCand reclassification of Learning Development and Diversity Specialist position among items discussed.

19 Factfinding Report and Recommendations The FederalMediation and Conciliation Service’s neutral panel issued its report onApril 30 in response to NAPS’ request for factfinding, which concluded inDecember.

35 Rep. Mark Meadows: Providing Bipartisan Supportfor Postal Legislation Director of Legislative & Political AffairsBob Levi interviewed Rep. Mark Meadows for his June 6 NAPS Chat.Meadows continues to advocate for a viable, universal Postal Service.

44 It Couldn’t Happen to Me, Could It? There are thousandsof susceptible people who find themselves or someone they love part of the opioid epidemic. When concerns arise, ask for help. No one can beataddiction by themselves.

RESIDENT OFFICERS

3 Inclusive Representation for All EAS Employees Brian J. Wagner

4 What Is Your Integrity Worth? Ivan D. Butts

5 Is It Really Pay for Performance? Chuck Mulidore

COLUMNS

34 Legislative Update Bob Levi

43 The NAPS Postmaster Joe Bodary

DEPARTMENTS

7 Louis M. Atkins Presidential Student Scholarships

8 NAPS of Note

17 NAPS Training Calendar

32 Views from the Vice Presidents Tony Dallojacono and Marilyn Walton

39 2019 SPAC Contributors

40 SPAC Scoreboard

47 Notes from the National Auxiliary Jane Finley

August 2019In This Issue

The Postal Supervisor / August 2019 3

Commentaryfrom the Resident Officers

ince the early 1970s, the Postal Service has rec-ognized NAPS as the “supervisors’ organiza-tion” for pay and non-pay consultation pur-poses within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. § 1004

(Title 39). NAPS has over 27,000 members, both activeand associate.

To most members, NAPS is viewed as an associa-tion whose primary role is to con-sult with the Postal Service on EASpay and benefits. However, NAPSis more than just an organizationthat represents EAS employees inpay. Here’s the scoop:

Article III, Membership, of theNAPS Constitution and Bylaws, clas-sifies who is an active, associate orhonorary member. NAPS memberswho are current EAS postal em-ployees are classified as active.Specifically, Article III, Section 2,

Active Members, subsections (a) and (b), read: “(a) Included are all supervisory/managerial and

postmaster personnel who are not subject to collectivebargaining agreements under Chapter 12 of Title 39,U.S. Code, and who are employed in processing anddistribution centers and facilities, including but notlimited to, Headquarters, area and district offices; postoffices; network distribution centers; and other instal-lation personnel.

“(b) NAPS is not the representative of personnelemployed as PCES installation heads, postal inspectorsor other PCES positions in USPS field facilities or atUSPS Headquarters.”

Per 39 U.S.C. § 1004, the Postal Service officiallyrecognizes NAPS as the only postal management or-ganization entitled to represent all non-postmasterEAS personnel over pay and benefits. Furthermore, al-though the USPS may want to divide EAS employeesby reporting structure, Title 39 does not differentiateEAS employees as field, area and Headquarters report-ing employees. The law is straightforward; there is no

division of EAS employees reporting in Title 39.First, no matter an employee’s EAS title—postmas-

ter, manager, supervisor, specialist, coordinator or anyother EAS managerial position—the USPS continues torecognize that an EAS employee who is a NAPS mem-ber may be represented by NAPS under ELM 650, ELM450 debt collection and the Merit Systems ProtectionBoard (MSPB).

Yes, NAPS may represent our postmaster membersin matters related to any USPS personnel action. AndNAPS’ efforts to gain official USPS recognition to represent postmasters regarding pay and non-pay consultation under Title 39 is ongoing. In addition,the benefits of NAPS membership are not limited torepresenting active members, but our retired associatemembers, as well.

Second, if you are a NAPS member—whether yourEAS title is postmaster, manager, supervisor, specialist,coordinator or any other EAS managerial position—you have access to the NAPS Disciplinary DefenseFund (DDF). This is the best adverse action and debtcollection representation of any postal managementassociation. Just know that NAPS’ MSPB and debt col-lection win rates are exceptional. Furthermore, our as-sociate members also are entitled to the DDF. This isgood news if the USPS makes a post-retirement debtcollection claim against an associate member.

Third, when NAPS lobbies Capitol Hill on postalmatters, we do not differentiate our members by EASor retirement title. Whether a NAPS member is a USPSHeadquarters or area reporting EAS employee, post-master, manager, supervisor, other managerial person-nel employee or associate member, our legislative ef-forts support all members.

Fourth, no matter your current or former EAS title,members may attend NAPS training, state and nation-al conventions and be elected to a branch, state or na-tional NAPS officer position. Most importantly, allmembers have the same voting rights.

Fifth, the children and grandchildren of NAPS

S

Brian J. WagnerPresident

Inclusive Representation for All EAS Employees

Continued on page 14

4 August 2019 / The Postal Supervisor

elvyn Douglas was an American actor whocame to prominence in the 1930s as a suaveleading man, perhaps best typified by hisperformance in the 1939 romantic comedy

“Ninotchka” with Greta Garbo. Douglas offered somenoteworthy quotes in his movie roles and personal life.One quote stands today as a life-shaping standard

passed on to me by my father:“Your word is your bond.”

This quote has been the stan-dard-bearer in my life. Your integri-ty is the one thing no one can takefrom you; you must willingly giveit away. And, once given, it nevercan be reclaimed.

Christina Meredith, nationalspeaker and foster care activist,wrote: “Integrity, I believe, is the es-sential characteristic in defining aperson’s true self. Integrity is the

quality of being honest. A person who demonstrates in-tegrity displays strong moral principles or moral upright-ness. He or she acts whole in intention and action, withno room for double-minded motives or deeds. Actingwith integrity is the simplest and least stressful choice tomake as an adult … because the truth really does set youfree!”

Meredith endured years of abuse before enteringthe foster care system; she aged out of the system at 18.After graduating from high school, she was homelessand lived in her car for almost a year.

She moved to California where she took a series ofodd jobs, eventually catching the eye of a pageant re-cruiter. In April 2013, Meredith won the title of Ms.California and has dedicated herself to speaking on be-half of abused children all over the country.

As managers in the USPS, this characteristic of in-tegrity is challenged almost daily in our attempts tocontinue serving America by providing the best servicepossible with the resources at hand. How do you re-spond to the following?

• “No drop day overtime for carriers,” followed by,“I want all carriers off the street by …”

• “All scans must be cleared before you go home.”• “All TACS errors must be cleared by the end of the

day.”• “No overtime.”• “No creeping overtime.”

These are just a few of the daily orders a managermay hear while moving America’s mail that could chal-lenge your integrity—the bond of your word. I mustadmit that the first bulleted item is not a challenge toone’s work being their bond. It is just the ongoing pat-tern that is at the center of Article 8 grievance payouts($35 million to date this fiscal year), due to senior lead-ership making a faraway operational decision based ondata designed to get a result rather than provide effec-tive reporting that has functional value.

The other bulleted items, however, will challengethe bond of your word based on your reactions. Theyinclude falsifying scans, falsifying TACS, changing clockrings to avoid showing overtime (sometimes with apromise of making it up to craft employees) or blanket-ly disallowing overtime outside the methods supportedby USPS policy and procedures.

So, how do you ensure that your word—your in-tegrity—is not thrown away in these operational in-stances? Perhaps you should send an email asking forclarification on the instruction, outlining what compli-ance is expected: “Just so I am clear on your instructionto …, in order to complete this task will require me to…. I need to ensure this is what you are instructing meto do. I respectfully wait for your reply.”

If the manager does, indeed, respond these are theinstructions, then you, as a manager, have a responsi-bility to carry out the now-written instructions. TheUSPS ELM 665.15, Obedience to Orders, reads:

“Employees must obey the instructions of their su-pervisors. If an employee has reason to question thepropriety of a supervisor’s order, the individual mustnevertheless carry out the order and may immediatelyfile a protest in writing to the official in charge of theinstallation or may appeal through official channels [em-phasis added].”

We have many well-seasoned EAS managers whoalso have unique processes that can help EAS employ-ees maintain their integrity through properly docu-menting events. My call is for the experienced to helpthe inexperienced so they can learn how to navigatethrough this leadership experience with the bond oftheir word being intact.

I also understand the examples of leadership thatcould make one believe that integrity has no value atall. This will be the subject of my next article.

In solidarity …[email protected]

M

Ivan D. ButtsExecutive Vice President

What Is Your Integrity Worth?

s a result of the fact-finding report issued April30, 2019, in response to the unilateral imposi-tion of the 2016-2019 pay package by theUSPS, NAPS has declined to be involved in de-

veloping 2020 NPA goals. Traditionally, the USPS hasrejected most of NAPS’ recommendations for improve-

ments to the NPA goals. Theagency simply uses NAPS to helpjustify implementing the NPA sys-tem, claiming that “NAPS was in-volved in the process”—almost asan endorsement of the process byNAPS.

To be clear, NAPS has not en-dorsed NPA. However, we did at-tend talks regarding NPA goals inyears past in hopes of influencingthe policy decisions that drive thisprocess. Now that the fact-finding

panel has found that the USPS Pay-for-Performance

(PFP) system is seriously flawed and NPA is the foun-dation of PFP, it vindicates NAPS’ position that partici-pation in developing NPA goals is not in the best inter-est of EAS employees in the Postal Service.

Moreover, we all have known for years that the cur-rent PFP system developed by the Postal Service pro-vides neither pay nor performance. If the developmentof goals were objective and based on input provided byemployees, then the Postal Service would have seengreat improvements in service and increases in EAS pay.However, the goal-setting process has been used in re-cent years to drive pay increases “to the left” of the bell-shaped curve, toward the lower-paying boxes in the PFPsystem, regardless of performance. Thus, NPA goals arebeing manipulated to drive down EAS pay.

In his June 2019 Government Executive article onpay-for-performance systems in government, national-ly recognized pay consultant Howard Risher wrote:“Where those decisions are subjective, the awards arefar less motivational for two reasons: Year-end awards


A

Chuck MulidoreSecretary/Treasurer

Is It Really Pay for Performance?

NAPS Member Percentage ReportMay 2019


cannot be anticipated and claims ofbias or discrimination are probablyinevitable.

“Government has … additionalproblems. There is a seemingly highlevel of distrust and fear that a … sys-tem will not pay employees fairly….If employees do not believe the deci-sions are fair, a pay-for-performancesystem can exacerbate morale prob-lems.

“Those problems can be avoidedby involving employees in the plan-ning. The National Geospatial-Intelli-gence Agency relied on that ap-proach in planning its highlysuccessful pay program. It’s a com-mon approach in higher education.Another strategy increasingly used inbusiness is requiring managers to ex-

plain and justify their rating deci-sions to a committee of peers.”

Another problem cited by Risher“is the contentious annual analysisshowing federal employees are un-derpaid by 30% or more. Pay for per-formance is not likely to be accepted

when employees believe their pay isunfair. Government needs to developcredible market pay data.”

There, in a nutshell, are the issuesthe Postal Service has not addressedin its approach to a PFP system. Theyunderlie the foundation of the fact-finding panel’s unanimous report tothe Postal Service on EAS pay thatrecommended substantial changes tothe Postal Service’s compensation for EAS employees. The report alsofound the Postal Service’s PFP systemto be broken and counterproductive.

So, is it really a pay-for-perform-ance system or an attempt by seniorleadership at the Postal Service todrive down your pay and benefitscompensation while senior executivesand craft employees continue to re-ceive regular pay increases, bonusesand cost-of-living adjustments?

Pay for performance? I think theanswer is obvious.

[email protected]

NAPS is pleased to announce we have a mailbox for members to submitphotos for our social media outlets. We want to hear from you! Memberscan send photos of NAPS activities directly to NAPS Headquarters at [email protected]. We will review the submissions before posting on our so-cial media outlets.

We encourage members to submit photos of branch meetings, socialoutings, meetings with postal leaders, meetings with congressional leadersin their districts, attendance at career awareness conferences and more.

When submitting a photo, please tell us about the event, the names ofthe members in the photo and when the event occurred. Also, please sendhi-resolution photos; we want everyone to look good.

We look forward to increasing our presence on social media with thisinitiative. Like, follow, share!

The Postal Supervisor2019 Production Schedule

Copy Issue Deadline* Mails

SEPT AUG 5 AUG 27OCT SEPT 5 SEPT 26NOV SEPT 26 OCT 22DEC OCT 23 NOV 19JAN 20 NOV 25 DEC 19FEB JAN 2 JAN 28

*Copy must be received by this day; seepage 2 for submission information.

Louis M. Atkins Presidential Student

Scholarships

National Association of Postal Supervisors

he Louis M. Atkins

Presidential Student

Scholarships are

awarded to honor former Presi-

dent Louis Atkins and other for-

mer NAPS presidents for their

dedication to NAPS members

and their families. These scholar-

ships are sponsored solely by

NAPS.

Applicants for this scholarship must be the

children or grandchildren of a living NAPS mem-

ber, active or associate, at the time of drawing.

Furthermore, the children or grandchildren must

be attending or have been accepted by an accredit-

ed two- or four-year college or university.

NAPS will award five $1,000 Louis M.

Atkins Presidential Student Scholarships. One

winner will be randomly selected from each of the

NAPS regional areas: Northeast, Eastern, Central,

Southern and Western.

Applications must be received

no later than Dec. 27, 2019. On-

line applications only will be ac-

cepted using the NAPS website.

Please go to www.naps.org under

the “Members” tab to apply for

the Louis M. Atkins Presidential

Student Scholarships, or go to

https://naps.org/Members-

Scholarship.

Scholarship winners will be announced in Jan-

uary 2020. In addition, the scholarship winners

will be listed in the March 2020 issue of The

Postal Supervisor.

Members whose child or grandchild have

been awarded a Louis M. Atkins Presidential

Student Scholarship will receive a check, payable

to the college or university listed in the applica-

tion, in January 2020. Scholarships may be used to

pay expenses in the student’s current or following

semester.

Deadline: Dec. 27, 2019

T

Louis M. Atkins Presidential Student

Scholarships

National Association of Postal Supervisors

Deadline: Dec. 27, 2019

T

Online applications only: https://naps.org/Members-Scholarship


NAPS of Note

Daniel Acevedo, manager,Vehicle Maintenance Facili-ty in Austin, TX, and an ac-tive member of AustinBranch 9, was presentedthe 2018 National Engage-ment Leader of the YearAward. Postmaster GeneralMegan Brennan and ChiefOperating Officer DaveWilliams offered their con-gratulations. Acevedo hada group photo of theAustin VMF crew signed byBrennan and Williams.

Hartford, CT, Branch 5 members presented an honorary membership pin to re-tiring Connecticut Valley District Manager Dave Mastroianni. From left: HectorCuadrado, Pamela Sizemore, Mastroianni and Lisa Douglas.

Front row, from left: Eastern Area Learning Development/Diver-sity Specialist Larry Lovejoy, Western New York District ManagerJean Lovejoy, Branch 27 President Dennis Gawron and NAPSPresident Brian Wagner. Back row: Executive Vice President IvanD. Butts, Secretary/Treasurer Chuck Mulidore and New YorkArea Vice President Jimmy Warden.

One June 5, Buffalo, NY, Branch 27 held its annualpicnic/meeting with over 55 attendees. NAPS Presi-dent Brian Wagner gave an update on the pay pack-age; Executive Vice President Ivan D. Butts discussedlegislative issues and Secretary/Treasurer ChuckMulidore focused on membership. New York AreaVice President Jimmy Warden encouraged membersto stay focused on NPA. Presently, all EAS employeesin the Western New York District are in box 4 orhigher; 55% are in box 5 or higher.


Attendees at the 2019 New York State Convention

President Brian Wagner swore in the state officers. From left: Secretary/Treasur-er Phyllis Morrissey, Executive Vice President Joe Amash and President DennisGawron.

Amanda Englerth, daughter of Ann Kon-ish Branch 11 President Scott Englerth,was awarded a scholarship by M3 Tech-nology. New York State President DennisGawron presented the scholarship toScott.

The New York State Convention was held May 23-25 at the Villa Roma in Callicoon, NY. NAPS President BrianWagner, Secretary/Treasurer Chuck Mulidore and New York Area Vice President Jimmy Warden attended. Con-gratulations to New York State President Dennis Gawron and Secretary/Treasurer Phyllis Morrissey on their re-election, as well as Joe Amash, who was elected Executive Vice President.

Postal Inspectors Emily Tar-rats and Team LeaderCharles Conliffe explainedhow management shouldrecognize and respond tothreats and incidents.

Mark Dahlstrom, USPSNortheast Area, talkedabout new technologiesthat will be tested and usedin the Postal Service, in-cluding the Northeast Area.


NAPS Secretary/Treasurer Chuck Mulidore (right), with Southern Region Vice Presi-dent Tim Ford (left) and Texas Area Vice President Jaime Elizondo (second fromright), installed the Texas State Board.

From left: Secretary/Treasurer ChuckMulidore, Houston Branch 122 Legisla-tive Rep/Texas State Area V Vice Presi-dent Jessie Austin and Southern Re-gion Vice President Tim Ford.

The Texas State Auxiliary honored long-time member Cheryl Burke who died thispast year.

Texas State Convention

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), center of the front row, held a town hall event on June 23 for postal employees. As a member of theHouse Oversight and Reform Committee, she wanted to hear directly from employees about successes and where there needs to be reforms.Representing NAPS were Fort Lauderdale Branch 296 member Patti Lynn (right of Wasserman Schultz), Florida Legislative Director AnnStrickland (with her SPAC Walkathon T-shirt), Branch 296 President Kelly Worthman (behind Lynn) and Miami Branch 146 member Jeff Best(back row, to the right of Worthman).


Western Region Vice President Marilyn Walton and Rocky Mountain Area Vice PresidentMyrna Pashinski were in Las Vegas preparing for the Western Region Training Seminar,Aug 1-4. During their visit, they met with Sierra-Nevada District Manager Traci Hill-San-difer, who will speak at the seminar. Hill-Sandifer invited NAPS to participate in theNevada-Sierra District career day. From left: Walton, Hill-Sandifer and Pashinski.

Las Vegas District Branch 463 hostedits regular business meeting and wel-comed Walton and Pashinski as guests.

Delegates attending the Rocky MountainSix-State Convention represented Phoenix,Tucson, Colorado/Wyoming, Las Vegas,Reno and New Mexico. The two-day con-vention, held at the Phoenix Airport Mar-riott, provided valuable training and raised$370 for SPAC.

Arizona Jerome V. Blanton Branch 246 hosted the convention. From left: Western RegionVice President Marilyn Walton, Branch 246 Secretary Dawn Burton, Vice President Wen-dell March, Treasurer Sharon Kiszczak, Juan Luna, Jimmy Salmon, George Hernandezand Rocky Mountain Area Vice President Myrna Pashinski.

Correction: On March 29, members ofLas Vegas District Branch 463 attendeda reception with House Speaker NancyPelosi. On p. 13 of the June Postal Su-pervisor, Sherry Patterson was erro-neously identified as Jackie Clayton.


This year’s Andy Sozzi Scholarship, sponsored by M3 Technology, was awarded to Dar-rell Johnson, grandson of NAPS member Barbara Hairston. Accepting the award at theNew Jersey State Convention was Trenton Branch 75 President Edgar Paules. Fromleft: Northeast Region Vice President Tommy Roma, Paules and Denise and Joe Albertifrom M3 Technology.

Long Island, NY, Branch 202 Vice Presidents DioenisD. Perez (left) and Frank Baselice (right) attended afundraiser on June 23 for Long Island Rep. TomSuozzi (D). The congressman assured the NAPSmembers he will support any postal-related bills.

NAPS national officers attended the New Jersey State Convention, June 23-25, in Atlantic City. From Left: Pioneer Area Vice President TimNeedham, Capitol-Atlantic Area Vice President Troy Griffin, Eastern Region Vice President Richard Green, Secretary/Treasurer Chuck Muli-dore, Executive Vice President Ivan D. Butts, Mideast Area Vice President Tony Dallojacono, Northeast Region Vice President Tommy Romaand New York Area Vice President Jimmy Warden.

This year’s Long Island Branch 202 Olympia Fasano Memorial Scholarship was awardedto Gianna Reyes, daughter of Tony Reyes. From left: New York Area Vice President JimmyWarden, Long Island District Manager Frank Calabrese, Tony Reyes and Branch 202 Presi-dent Tom Barone.


Executive Vice President Ivan D. Butts, with MideastArea Vice President Tony Dallojacono (left) and East-ern Region Vice President Richard Green (secondfrom left), swore in the newly elected PennsylvaniaState Executive Board.

NAPS Executive Board members joined in support ofthe Pennsylvania State Convention, June 20-22.From left: Pioneer Area Vice President Tim Need-ham, Capitol-Atlantic Area Vice President Troy Grif-fin, Mideast Area Vice President Tony Dallojacono,Eastern Region Vice President Richard Green and Ex-ecutive Vice President Ivan D. Butts.

NAPS officers attending the Central GulfArea Training seminar, held in conjunctionwith the AL/LA/MS Tri-State conventionon May 30, were, from left: Central GulfArea Vice President Cornel Rowel, TexasArea Vice President Jaime Elizondo, for-mer President Louis Atkins, SoutheastArea Vice President Bob Quinlan, South-ern Region Vice President Tim Ford, for-mer Central Gulf Area Vice President RoyBeaudoin and Secretary/Treasurer ChuckMulidore.

Central Gulf Area delegates attended the 30thannual Tri-State Convention in Tunica, MS.


members—active and associate—have an opportunity to apply for an-nual NAPS scholarships.

Sixth, active and associate mem-bers receive $25 for each new activemember they sign. Consider this aNAPS PFP: pay-for-promoting NAPSmembership.

Finally, all members are encour-aged to visit the NAPS website atwww.naps.org to learn more aboutthe benefits of NAPS membership.There you will find breaking NAPSnews, correspondence received fromUSPS Headquarters, officer training

information, NAPS’ legislative effortsand the opportunity to apply for aNAPS Visa credit card, administeredby Signature Federal Credit Union, toname just a few.

NAPS is not about dividing, butjoining together all current and for-mer EAS employees. To become astronger, more influential postalmanagement association, NAPS mustremain persistent in our efforts torepresent all EAS titles during paytalks and at the consultative table.

Let’s continue pushing forwardby signing EAS employees. No matteran employee’s EAS title or to whomthey report—USPS Headquarters orarea—all are eligible for active NAPS

membership per Article III of ourConstitution and Bylaws. NAPS wantsall EAS employees to receive the bestNAPS representation and associationbenefits possible.

Furthermore, keep your NAPSrepresentation going into postal re-tirement by becoming an associatemember. No law or EAS title canchange your right to be part of theNAPS family and be represented asan active or associate member in ourassociation.

I must say my August ice-cream-flavor-of-the-month recommenda-tion should be against the law: triplecaramel chunk!

[email protected]

Inclusive Representation for All EAS EmployeesContinued from page 3

Northeast Region Vice President TommyRoma visited late President Vince Palladi-no’s grave on Flag Day, June 14, whichwould have been his 84th birthday.

National Auxiliary Executive Vice President Laurie Butts, with members of the Capitol-Atlantic Area Auxiliary, raised money for SPAC at the Capitol-Atlantic All States ConventionMay 31-June 1. From left: National Auxiliary Capitol-Atlantic Area Vice President Skip Corley,Laurie Butts, Hazel Green, Dee Cox and Jo Geter.

SPAC walkathon participants at the 2019 Florida/Georgia Bi-State Convention raised over $1,600 for SPAC.

15—Rocky Mountain Area (AZ/CO/NV/NM/UT/WY)Myrna Pashinski21593 E. Layton Dr., Aurora, CO 80015-6781(303) 931-1748 (C)[email protected]

16—Pacific Area (CA, HI, Guam, American Samoa)Chuck Lum95-12222 Moea St., Mililani, HI 96789-5965(808) 227-5764 (C)[email protected]

12—Cotton Belt Area (AR/OK/TN)Shri L. Green4072 Royalcrest Dr.,Memphis, TN 38115-6438 (901) 362-5436 (H) (901) 482-1216 (C) [email protected]

13—Texas Area (TX)Jaime Elizondo Jr.PO Box 1357, Houston, TX 77251-1357(832) 722-3737 (C)[email protected]

14—Northwest Area (AK/ID/MT/OR/WA)Cindy McCracken3247 109th Ave. S.E. #A, Bellevue, WA98004-7532(206) 465-8689 (C)[email protected]

9—MINK Area (IA/KS/MO/NE)Richard “Bart” Green7919 N Flintlock Rd., #K, Kansas City,MO 64158(913) 205-8912 (C)(816) 763-2579 (O)[email protected]

10—Southeast Area (FL/GA)Bob QuinlanPO Box 490363, Leesburg, FL 34749-0363; (352) 217-7473 (C)(352) 728-5992 (fax)[email protected]

11—Central Gulf Area (AL/LA/MS)Cornel Rowel Sr.808 N Sabine Dr., Baton Rouge, LA70810-2471(504) 450-1993 (C)[email protected]

6—Michiana Area (IN/MI)Kevin Trayer8943 E. DE Ave., Richland, MI 49083-9639(269) 366-9810 (C)[email protected]

7—Illini Area (IL)Luz Moreno625 Alhambra Ln., Hoffman Estates,IL 60169-1907; (847) 884-7875 (H)(773) 726-4357 (C)[email protected]

8—North Central Area (MN/ND/SD/WI)Dan Mooney10105 47th Ave. N, Plymouth, MN55442-2536(612) 242-3133 (C)[email protected]

Brian J. [email protected]

Ivan ButtsExecutive Vice [email protected]

Chuck MulidoreSecretary/[email protected]

The resident officers may be contacted at 1727King St., Suite 400, Alexandria, VA 22314-2753;(703) 836-9660; (703) 836-9665 (fax)

Resident Officers

Central Region (Areas 6, 7, 8 and 9)Craig O. Johnson9305 N. Highland Ct., Kansas City,MO 64155-3738; (816) 914-6061 (C)[email protected]

Southern Region (Areas 10, 11, 12 and 13)Tim Ford6214 Klondike Dr., Port Orange, FL 32127-6783; (386) 767-FORD (H)(386) 679-3774 (C) [email protected]

Western Region (Areas 14, 15 and 16)Marilyn WaltonPO Box 103, Vacaville, CA 95696-0103(707) 449-8223 (H)[email protected]

3—Mideast Area (DE/NJ/PA)Tony DallojaconoPO Box 750, Jackson, NJ 08527-0750(973) 986-6402 (C); (732) 363-1273 (O)[email protected]

4—Capitol-Atlantic Area (DC/MD/NC/SC/VA)Troy Griffin1122 Rosanda Ct., Middle River, MD21220-3025(443) 506-6999 (C)(410) 892-6491 (H)[email protected]

5—Pioneer Area (KY/OH/WV/Evansville, IN, Branch 55)Timothy NeedhamPO Box 21, Niles, OH 44446-0021(330) 550-9960 (C)[email protected]

NAPS Executive Board Directory

Northeast Region (Areas 1 and 2, including all NJ,except Branch 74)Thomas Roma385 Colon Ave., Staten Island, NY10308-1417; (718) 605-0357 (H)(917) 685-8282 (C)[email protected]

Eastern Region (Areas 3—DE, PA and NJ Branch 74—4and 5)Richard L. Green Jr.7734 Leyland Cypress Lane,Quinton, VA 23141-1377(804) 928-8261 (C)[email protected]

1—New England Area (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT)Cy Dumas4 Adams St., Foxboro, MA 02035-2202(508) 816-7517 (C)[email protected]

2—New York Area (NY/PR/VI)James “Jimmy”Warden137 Evergreen Court, Freehold, NJ07728-4122(917) 226-8768 (C) [email protected]

Area Vice Presidents

Regional Vice Presidents


May 14 Consultative

resident Brian Wagner, Ex-ecutive Vice President IvanD. Butts and Secretary/Trea-surer Chuck Mulidore at-

tended the May consultative meet-ing. Executive Board Chair Tim Fordattended via telecon. Representingthe Postal Service were Bruce Nichol-son, Phong Quang and Henry Bear,USPS Labor Relations Policy Admin-istration.

Agenda Item #1NAPS has received questions

from the field regarding Not to Ex-ceed (NTE) details in district MOPSshops that people remain in foryears. NAPS contends that the USPShas more than demonstrated theneed for the new EAS positions andrequests that all NTE details inMOPS shops be converted to Form50 FTE EAS positions that are war-ranted.

The Postal Service is not aware ofany NTE assignments in district MOPSshops.

Agenda Item #2NAPS brought Agenda Item #6

from the April 10 consultative for anupdate.

Field EAS employees providedNAPS the following information thatimpacts its members:

Eastern Area, Pittsburgh PlantReopening, Pittsburgh District

“Regular operations will resumeFriday, April 5, 2019, at 5 a.m. ET forthe Pittsburgh NDC, 300 BrushCreek Rd., Warrendale, PA 15095.

We appreciate your patience duringthis unexpected closure.”

NAPS Headquarters is disheart-ened that USPS leadership is failingto engage NAPS on issues that im-pact the health and welfare of itsmembership. However, now thatthis facility—a major hub for allclasses of mail—is being reopenedafter a 13-day closure, NAPS is re-questing a briefing on the mitigatingfactors for the PFP process due tothis closure, which has impactedNPA scores on a national, area, dis-trict, MPOO area, Lead FinanceNumber and Unit Finance Numberlevel. The shutdown of this facilityhas negative impacts on various NPAscores. These impacts apply acrossthe nation across multiple NPA indi-cators—not just service indicators.

NAPS asked the exact number ofmail articles that have had EventCode 75 applied to them. Based onUSPS correspondence received by re-cipients and mailers concerningmailed articles, NAPS believes and re-quests that mitigations for this eventnow be made based on the knowndata on not only the destroyed mailarticles, but also on the numerousmail articles that were delayed in pro-cessing during this 13-day shutdownof the Pittsburgh NDC.

There were 6,248 mail articles thathad Event Code 75 (event messaging)applied. These pieces were disposed ofby the USPS.

As we responded at the April con-sultative meeting, it is too soon to deter-mine whether there were any impacts to

NPA indicators resulting from theNCD’s closure.

NAPS asked how many pieceswere delayed from the shutdown.

This information is not known atthis time.

Agenda Item #3NAPS requested an update on

agenda item #1 from the Februaryconsultative:

NAPS requested reconsiderationregarding the USPS’ decision to clas-sify the Learning Development andDiversity Specialist (EAS-16), Occu-pation Code 0201-0356, as an FLSA-exempt position. The USPS createdthis position to identify work beingdone in the PEDC by the Human Re-sources Specialist (EAS-16), Occupa-tion Code 0201-0078, as an FLSAnon-exempt position.

In prior discussions, the USPScited U.S. Department of Labor(DOL) Fact Sheet #17C as guidancefor making this FLSA change. On re-view of this documentation, NAPSreached out to the DOL based on itsobjection to applying DOL FactSheet #17. NAPS contends the posi-tion (current or prior) fails to meetthe DOL requirement for exemptstatus as found in DOL Fact Sheet#17, “Administrative Exemption.”

NAPS met with Ben Searle, a rep-resentative of DOL’s Wage and HourInvestigation Unit, to review this jobclassification. The DOL providedNAPS with additional fact tests thatmust be made in determining anFLSA status.

P

Impact of Emergency Closure of Pittsburgh NDC and Reclassification of Learning Development andDiversity Specialist Position Among Items Discussed

The DOL judged the USPS classifi-cation of the position fails to meetthe test of discretion and independ-ent judgment as found in CFR 29,Part §541.202. The Learning Develop-ment and Diversity Specialist (EAS-16), Occupation Code 0201-0356,does not exercise any discretion andindependent judgment in performingtheir job duties and responsibilities.The position is at the direction of themanager, Learning Development andDiversity.

In addition, this discretionaryand independent judgment is re-quired to be the employee’s primaryduty. The DOL defines primary du-ties in CFR 29, Part §541.700, asprincipal, main, major or most im-portant duty that the employee per-forms. This also is not the case forthis position.

Based on the clarifications of theDOL on properly classifying admin-istrative exempt positions, NAPS re-quests that the newly created posi-tion of Learning Development andDiversity Specialist (EAS-16), Occu-pation Code 0201-0356, be classifiedas FLSA non-exempt as its prior posi-tion, Human Resources Specialist(EAS-16), Occupation Code 0201-0078, was properly classified as FLSAnon-exempt.

The Learning Development and Di-versity Specialist (EAS-16), OccupationCode 0201-0356, position is being re-viewed to determine if any changes inFLSA classification are necessary.

The latest response: The Postal Ser-vice completed a review and has deter-mined that the Learning Developmentand Diversity Specialist (EAS-16), Occu-pation Code 0201-0356, position is non-exempt under the Fair Labor StandardsAct (FLSA). Employees affected by thischange were notified on Friday, May 10,of the immediate reclassification andprocedures for positions under FLSA non-exempt. As a result of being misclassi-fied, the notice provided instructions on

how to submit information for any un-paid overtime in these assignments madeeffective Oct. 13, 2018, to the district HRmanager for review.

Agenda Item #4NAPS brought agenda item #2

from the February consultative:NAPS requested a briefing on the

financial benefits for the USPS in ex-tending the Attendance Control Offi-cer (ACO) NTE (EAS-19), OccupationCode 0201-0355, detail. This briefingshould include the return-on-invest-ment that has been recorded and re-ported by the USPS during the EOYreview process of this function.

John Prokity, manager of Workforce


NAPS Training CalendarWestern Region TrainingSeminarAug. 1-4, 2019Conducted by: Western Region VP Mari-lyn Walton, Northwest Area VP Cindy Mc-Cracken, Rocky Mountain Area VP MyrnaPashinski and Pacific Area VP Chuck Lum

Location: Sunset Station Hotel & Casino,1301 West Sunset Rd., Henderson, NV89014; 888-786-7389; use group code “SCINAPS”

Hotel Rate: $49 plus taxes/Thursday;$89 plus taxes/Friday and Saturday. Youmust stay Friday and Saturday night toreceive this rate.

Registration Fee: $175; $220 if not stay-ing at the host hotel. After July 12, regis-tration is $220. Make checks payable toNAPS Headquarters and mail to MyrnaPashinski, 21593 E. Layton Dr., Aurora,CO 80015-6781. Everyone eating lunchmust be registered for the seminar orpurchase a meal ticket: $45 per personper day.

Training Topics: representation training,panel discussion and Q&A sessions; othertopics TBD

Southeast Area TrainingSept. 28, 2019Conducted by: Southeast Area Vice Pres-ident Bob Quinlan

Location: Embassy Suites by Hilton, Ft.Myers-Estero, 10450 Corkscrew Com-mons Dr., Estero, FL 33928; (239) 949-4222

Hotel Rate: $114

Registration Fee: $35

Instructors: Southern Region Vice Presi-dent Tim Ford on how to stay out of trou-ble; A/Senior Plant Manager Don Shandor,Sun Coast District; more TBD

Central Region TrainingOct. 4-5, 2019Conducted by: Central Region VP CraigJohnson, Illini Area VP Luz Moreno, NorthCentral Area VP Dan Mooney, MichianaArea VP Kevin Trayer and MINK Area VPBart Green

Location: Hyatt Regency Bloomingtonnear Mall of America, 3200 East 81st St.,Bloomington, MN 55425; (952) 922-1234or (800) 233-1234; the hotel offers afree, daily shuttle to and from the airport;parking at the hotel is free. Room blockcutoff is Sept. 1.

Hotel Rate: $109/one king or twoqueens; $139/Regency Club one king ortwo queens; $209/one king suite—tax isadditional

Registration Fee: $135 until Sept. 1;$175 thereafter. Fee includes Friday re-ception and hospitality room, snackbreaks, Saturday lunch and training ma-terials. Make checks payable to NAPSHeadquarters. Branch and state presi-dents are asked to bring a $50 gift itemfor SPAC.

Training Topics: Legislative advocacy,retirement, OIG, financial controls, advo-cacy, NPA, ELM 650, Delivery Manage-ment, membership branch officer train-ing, sexual harassment, HERO profile,informed visibility, attendance control andNAPS national officers Q&A

Instructors: Resident officers, Kevin Tray-er, Dan Mooney, Glenn Smith, EsmeraldaDominguez, Steve Dillard and others


Planning, Insights & Analytics, attend-ed the meeting to address employeeavailability. The ACO initiative had a5% sick leave target, with a savings op-portunity of $132,448,243. From theinception of the ACO and into Quarter1 of FY19, the Postal Service hasachieved a reduction in career sick leaveof 598,924 hours, with a savings of$18.35 million.

The USPS further responded thatthe NTE ACO positions were approvedFebruary/March 2018. The ACO’s mis-sion is attendance control and improv-ing employee availability. While sickleave decreased, the USPS noticed an in-crease in leave-without-pay (LWOP)usage. The Postal Service will continuethe NTE ACO position through FY19. Itthen will determine whether to continue

the ACO position after reviewing FY19leave results.

NAPS asked the USPS to look intothe issue of postal employees whohave retired. Until OPM finalizes anemployee’s retirement, they remainon the postal rolls and their time iscoded in TACS as LWOP. NAPS in-quired whether or not the USPS ad-justs LWOP to account for the retire-ment issue. The USPS will investigateand advise NAPS on its findings.NAPS’ position is that this retirementLWOP needs to be factored out of theLWOP percentage usage and notcharged against NPA’s EmployeeAvailability Unit Indicator.

Based on the documented finan-cial ROI being reported by the USPS,NAPS requested that all NTE ACO

details be converted to Form 50 FTEEAS positions.

As we responded during the Febru-ary consultative, the initiative had a5% sick leave target with a savings op-portunity of $132,448,243. However,the Postal Service achieved a savings ofonly $18.35 million after the initial re-view period. The NTE ACO assignmentwas extended for an additional year tomeasure the program’s effectiveness.The USPS will determine at that timeon the future of the ACO position afterreviewing all the results.

Agenda Item #5On July 13, 2018, the National

Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issueda consent order that has a fiduciarycost of $17,500 per incident in addi-tion to $100 each day the court findsthe violations to have continued.This case involves the timely fulfill-ment of requests for information(RFI) made by the union to theUSPS. The USPS has created this vio-lation through continually overbur-dening EAS employees to completefunctions other than ensuring Amer-ica’s mail is processed and delivered.

The consent order contends thatthe USPS is in a position to signifi-cantly reduce the liability of the con-sent order by way of a review requestin the first 12 months after its entryto the NLRB’s assistant general coun-sel or designee. If the NRLB’s assistantgeneral counsel or designee deter-mines the Postal Service was in sub-stantial compliance during this 12-month period, the prospective finestructure outlined above will be re-duced up to $12,000 for each futureviolation of the consent order and upto $60 each day the court finds theviolations to have continued.

NAPS contends this fiduciary re-lease can best be achieved by EASleadership focusing on timely com-pletion of this task without the



UNITED STATES OF AMERICAFEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE

PURSUANT TO 39 U.S.C. S1004(f).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT............................................20

COMPENSATION STANDARDS, ASSOCIATION

RIGHTS, JUDICIAL GUIDANCE AND

PANEL AUTHORITY........................................................20

A. COMPENSATION STANDARDS...........................20

B. ASSOCIATION RIGHTS........................................21

C. JUDICIAL GUIDANCE .......................................21

D. PANEL AUTHORITY............................................22

PROCEDURAL HISTORY.................................................22

THE HEARING.................................................................23

ISSUE PRESENTED...........................................................23

DISCUSSION ...................................................................23

COMPARABILITY GENERALLY ...............................24

SUPERVISOR DIFFERENTIAL ADJUSTMENT ..........24

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE........................................26

LOCALITY PAY.........................................................27

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................28

1. Supervisor Differential Adjustment ....................28

2. Pay for Performance ............................................28

3. Locality Pay .........................................................29

4. Joint Work Group ................................................29

5. Retroactive Pay Raises ..........................................30

6. NAPS Representation—Headquarters and

Area Employees ...................................................31

CONCLUSION.................................................................31

Contents

FACTFINDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PANEL MEMBERS:

Susan E. Halperin Neutral Chair

Robert S. Hite Neutral Member

Joshua M. Javits Neutral Member

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE:

Katherine S. AttridgeManager, Collective Bargaining & Arbitration

Bruce A. Nicholson Manager, Labor Relations Policy Administration

Erin E. Lynch Chief Counsel, Labor Law

Terence F. Flynn Labor Counsel

FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS:

BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP

Andrew D. Freeman

Jean M. Zachariasiewicz

ISSUED: April 30, 2019

IN THE MATTER OF: ))

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ))

AND ))

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )POSTAL SUPERVISORS )FMCS: #180706-06229 )

Factfinding Report and Recommendations


PRELIMINARY STATEMENTThis Factfinding Report, including the findings and

recommendations, is a result of the National Associa-tion of Postal Supervisors (“NAPS”) request for factfind-ing pursuant to the Postal Reorganization Act (39 U.S.C.§101 (a) et seq.) (“PRA”) and is being provided to theUnited States Postal Service (“Service”) for its considera-tion of our Report and Recommendations.

The law requires that the Service, in the time allot-ted by the PRA, provides a final decision to NAPS on thematters covered by factfinding, giving full and fair con-sideration to this Panel’s recommendation, and explain-ing in writing any differences between its final decisionand the Panel’s recommendation.

The Service is an independent agency of the Execu-tive Branch of the United States Government, reorgan-ized pursuant to the PRA. The PRA imposes on the Ser-vice the so-called “universal delivery” mandate. TheService is charged with this unenviable and almost im-possible task of providing “prompt, reliable, and efficientservices to patrons in all areas by rendering postal servic-es to all communities,”1 without having control over asignificant segment of its revenues and expenses. In addi-tion, significant segments of the Service’s ability to setrates are limited by the 2006 Postal Accountability andEnhancement Act (PAEA) and are regulated by the PostalRegulatory Commission. These obligations and limita-tions have resulted in the Service operating with annualmulti-billion dollar deficits for more than a decade.

Furthermore, Congress has imposed upon the Ser-vice unfunded liabilities such as the funding of pen-sions, retiree health benefits and workers compensationbenefits.

It is significant that these services are provided nomatter the weather conditions and despite natural disas-ters and other emergencies when its mission may be ofthe most importance.

The PRA delegated broad general powers to the Ser-vice, including the power to set the salaries of its man-agement and supervisory employees. Under the PRA,Congress expressly excluded Postal Service supervisoryand managerial employees from representation in anycollective bargaining unit.2 In lieu of bargaining rights,Congress afforded duly-recognized associations the abil-ity “to participate directly in the planning and develop-

ment of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit pro-grams, and other programs relating to supervisory andother managerial employees.”3

Currently, two such managerial associations repre-sent supervisory and managerial personnel—The UnitedPostmasters and Managers of America (“UPMA”), repre-senting Postmasters, who are the installation heads atpost offices throughout the United States, and NAPS,representing approximately 31,000 Field managers, su-pervisors, and professional, administrative and techni-cal personnel in the field.4

NAPS and the Service are the parties in this proceed-ing. The parties have a long history of working collabo-ratively and cooperatively together on issues of mutualinterest identified in the PRA.

The PRA is clear that the Service makes the final de-cision with regard to changes in pay policies and sched-ules and fringe benefits with regard to these managersand supervisors.

COMPENSATION STANDARDS, ASSOCIATIONRIGHTS, JUDICIAL GUIDANCE AND PANEL

AUTHORITYA. Compensation Standards

The pay policies of Title 39 are set forth in variousprovisions, including Sections 101, 1003 and 1004(a)and (d)(3). The PRA establishes four requirements theService must meet when setting supervisory and mana-gerial compensation levels. The Service must:

1. “[M]aintain compensation and benefits for all... employees on a standard of comparabilityto the compensation and benefits paid forcomparable levels of work in the private sectorof the economy;”

2. “[A]ssure the attraction and retention of quali-fied and capable supervisory and managerialpersonnel;”

3. “[P]rovide adequate and reasonable differen-tials in rates of pay between employees in theclerk and carrier grades in the line work forceand supervisory and other managerial per-sonnel;” and

4. “[E]stablish and maintain continuously a pro-gram for all such personnel that reflects theessential importance of a well-trained and

1 39 U.S.C. §101(a)2 39 U.S.C. §1202(1)3 39 U.S.C. §1004 (b)4 There were discrepancies between the number of NAPS employees set forth in Joint Exhibit I and the testimony of witnesses.


well-motivated workforce to improve the ef-fectiveness of postal operations.”

B. Association RightsThe rights of associations representing managerial

and supervisory employees of the Service are set forth inSection 1004, which provides, among other things, thatsuch organizations are “entitled to participate directlyin the planning and development of pay policies, fringebenefit programs and other programs relating to super-visory and managerial employees.”

By way of background, in 1970, the predecessor tothe Service experienced a nationwide strike that signifi-cantly disrupted the delivery of mail and mail servicesthroughout the United States. This strike influenced the contents of the PRA, which, among other things,guaranteed bargaining rights to members of the craftunions.5

Although Congress did not afford collective bargain-ing rights to organizations representing supervisors andmanagers, it did establish criteria that the Service mustfollow in determining its compensation program forthese supervisors and managers. Congress also providedthese supervisors and managers with the right to havemeaningful input into the process by which their com-pensation is determined. This right included the rightto participate directly in the planning and developmentof pay policies.6

In order to better ensure that the supervisors’ andmanagers’ input was not being ignored, Congress im-posed upon the Service the obligations to give recom-mendations made by the associations representing thesupervisors and managers “full and fair consideration”and to provide reasons if any recommendations are re-jected.7

In National Association of Postal Supervisors v. U.S.Postal Service, 602 F. 2d 420,8 the Court commented onthe meaning of the term “direct participation” as thatterm is used in this section, finding that it is more thanconsultation but less than bargaining. It found that “di-rect participation” is a hybrid of these two processes,combining noncompulsory features of consultation withthe good faith requirements of negotiation. It found thatthe Association must be afforded a reasonable opportuni-

ty to analyze, understand and criticize the Service’s com-pensation programs and have its recommendations re-garding desired changes given consideration.

Section 1004(f) provides that if an association be-lieves that a pay decision of the Service is not in compli-ance with the PRA, the association may request that afactfinding panel be convened to conduct a hearing andmake recommendations regarding pay disputes betweenthe Service and the association. The undersigned consti-tute the factfinding panel in the instant proceeding.9

C. Judicial Interpretation of the PRAIn National Association of Postal Supervisors v. U.S.

Postal Service, the Court had occasion to pass on a chal-lenge by NAPS and the National League of Postmastersinvolving the provision of Section 1004(a) of the PRAthat requires the service “to provide adequate and rea-sonable differentials in rates of pay between” unionizedrank-and-file employees and their supervisors and man-agers. In the course of its review, the Court interpretedSections 1003(a) and 101(c) finding, among otherthings, that adequacy and reasonableness must bemeasured in light of the other standards Congress in-cluded in the PRA to guide the Service’s compensationdecisions. The Court wrote that the Service must con-sider a number of factors in setting the compensationand benefits of its supervisory and other managerialpersonnel, including the compensation paid for com-parable work in the private sector, the need to attractand retain qualified and capable management person-nel, and the importance of promoting the leadershipstatus of those personnel vis-à-vis the rank-and-fileworkers they supervise.

In finding that the Service has much discretion inestablishing salary levels for management, the Courtheld as follows:

If in establishing salary levels for managementpersonnel the Postal Service considers each ofthese factors and arrives at a good faith judg-ment regarding a differential that is adequateand reasonable in light of these factors, then ithas performed its duty under Section 1004, andjudiciary inquiry is at an end.


5 Service Exhibit A2, p. 7; Service Exhibit B1, p. 76 Service Exhibit Al, 39 U.S.C. 1004(b)7 Service Exhibit Al, 39 U.S.C. 1004(d)(1)(C)8 Service Exhibit A29 Factfinding has been invoked on one occasion prior to the instant proceeding, that being in 2012.


The Postal Service must show that it consideredall the factors as directed by the Postal Act andthat it applied such factors in establishing ade-quate and reasonable salary differentials for allsupervisory and other managerial personnel.This showing necessarily requires the Postal Ser-vice to set out the factors it considered to ex-plain the relationship between those factors andthe statutory requirements, to describe whatthose factors indicated, to reveal why (and how)it resolved the tensions, if any, among the vari-ous factors, and to relate why the salary differen-tials resulting from these calculations are ade-quate and reasonable in light of the factors.

D. Panel AuthorityThe scope of the Panel’s authority in this matter is

set forth in 39 U.S.C. §1004(d)(3), which provides, inpertinent part, as follows:

(3)(A) The panel shall recommend standards forpay policies and schedules and fringe benefitprograms affecting the members of the supervi-sors’ organization for the period covered by thecollective bargaining agreement specified in sub-section (e)(l) of this section. The standards shallbe consistent with the policies of this title, in-cluding Sections 1003(a) and 1004(a) of this title.

(B) The panel shall, consistent with such stan-dards, make appropriate recommendations con-cerning the differences between the parties onsuch policies, schedules, and programs.

The Panel reviews the Service’s decision in light ofthe standards set forth above.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 7, 2017, the National Association of Let-

ter Carriers (“NALC”), which became the Service’slargest union, ratified a three-year collective bargainingagreement. On September 21, 2017, the Service sentNAPS its initial pay proposal for FY2016 throughFY2019, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. §1004(e). The partiesscheduled their first discussion on the proposal for Oc-tober 19, 2017. Between October 19, 2017 and June of2018, the parties met seven times to discuss the pay pro-

posal, and the Postal Service revised its pay package inresponse to NAPS’ input on April 6, 2018, and May 15,2018, and issued its pay decision on June 28, 2018.

During its participations with NAPS, the Servicemade several changes to its pay decision, including thefollowing:

• Raised all of the minimum salaries for thegrades in the EAS salary structure and closedthe gap in pay bands per NAPS’ request;

• Agreed to maintain the status quo for the em-ployer health benefits contribution for the du-ration of the pay package, with no increase inemployee cost share, again as requested byNAPS;

• Upgraded the EAS-12 Administrative Assistant(Field) position to level EAS-15 and awarded a2% salary increase, which was a compromiseposition to NAPS’ request for broader-based position upgrades;

• Continued a 15-point rating system as part ofthe Pay-for-Performance (PFP) program, whichrepresented a modification of the Postal Ser-vice’s position, albeit very short of NAPS’ pro-posal for a major overhaul of the PFP matrix;

• Allowed for greater promotional pay increases,again a compromise position, but one short ofNAPS’ proposal to double the percentage in-creases for promoted employees;

• Agreed to establish a joint work group for thepurpose of exploring and resolving issues re-garding Field EAS salaries and grades, a posi-tion with which NAPS agreed, although the As-sociation also requested that the joint workgroup address PFP. To be completed by Septem-ber 2018.10

On July 5, 2018, NAPS notified the Service that itplanned to pursue factfinding in accordance with 39U.S.C. §1004(f)(1). On July 20, 2018, the Service issuedits pay decision. In its July 20, 2018 decision, the Servicerevised its June 28, 2018, pay package decision for

10 There is no evidence in the record that the work group explored or resolved the issues concerning EAS salaries and grades during the period.



NAPS-represented employees to comport with the Ser-vice’s pay package decision relating to Postmasters andmanagers who are represented by UPMA.11

NAPS was not satisfied with the Service’s July 20,2018, decision and chose to pursue the factfindingprocess. NAPS contacted the Federal Mediation andConciliation Service in accordance with the PRA, andthis Panel was duly convened pursuant to 39 U.S.C.§1004(f)(3).

The Panel engaged in pre-hearing discussions withregard to its responsibilities by telephone and electroni-cally. Absent specific statutory, regulatory, and policyprocedures, the Panel communicated with the Partiesover a period of time culminating in rules and proce-dures established for the proceeding. In addition, theParties submitted pre-hearing briefs and provided docu-ments that were subsequently introduced into therecord of the hearing. Each party presented a largebinder of materials relevant to each party’s presentationin order to introduce information to the Panel thatwould be reviewed prior to and supplemented duringthe hearing process.

THE HEARINGThe Panel and the Parties engaged in two prolonged

days of factfinding hearings at NAPS’ Headquarters inAlexandria, Virginia, on December 10 and 11, 2018. Atranscript was made of the hearing, in the course ofwhich a voluminous record was compiled. NAPS pre-sented statements and PowerPoint presentations andexhibits through four witnesses. In the course of itspresentation, NAPS entered into the record 31 docu-ments as exhibits. The Service presented statements andPowerPoint presentations and exhibits through sevenwitnesses. The Service entered into the record 34 multi-page documents as exhibits, including five sets of slides.The Parties also entered into the record two multi-pagedocuments as joint exhibits. Following the close of thehearing, the Parties submitted post-hearing briefs, andNAPS also submitted a reply brief.

By agreement, the parties waived, in writing, thepre-hearing statutory deadlines established in 39 U.S.C.§1004(f) and the 30-day requirement in 39 U.S.C.§1004(f)(4).

The Panel represents that it reviewed the entirety ofthe record, including the transcripts, the prehearing and

post hearing submissions by the Parties, as well as con-sidered all arguments advanced by the Parties to thisProceeding although specific items may not be ad-dressed herein.

We are satisfied that our findings and recommenda-tions comport with the statutory requirements as out-lined herein and should be considered fully by the Service.

ISSUE PRESENTEDDOES THE SERVICE’S DECISION OF JULY 20, 2018

SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRA?12

DISCUSSIONAs a preliminary matter, the Panel is mindful of the

long-term fiscal distress that the Service has been expe-riencing. It is against this distressed fiscal backdrop thatthis Panel convened to conduct a hearing and make rec-ommendations regarding standards for pay policies andschedules and fringe benefit programs between the Ser-vice and its Field EAS employees.

We note, at the outset, that the financial condition ofthe Service is not a statutory standard that is to be con-sidered by the Panel. Rather, the appropriate standardsguiding our deliberations are set forth in various provi-sions of Title 39 of the United States Code, summaries ofwhich are set forth in more detail above. We believe thatthis conclusion is consistent with judicial interpretationof the relevant provisions of the PRA, as well as the find-ings of Arbitrator Goldberg in his 2016 interest arbitra-tion award. The Panel is cognizant of the fact that thestatutory process for the interest arbitration proceedingout of which the Goldberg award arose is different fromthat of the instant proceeding; however, the compensa-tion standards that Arbitrator Goldberg and his arbitra-tion board were called upon to interpret and apply,namely 39 U.S.C. §§101 (c) and 1003(a), were identical totwo of the standards present in this proceeding. None ofthe other statutory standards that apply to this proceed-ing specifically require this Panel to consider the financialcondition of the Service. Therefore, we have taken partic-ular note of the following language contained in Arbitra-tor Goldberg’s interest arbitration award:

In rendering this Award, I acknowledge the fi-nancial problems affecting the Postal Service,

11 UPMA did not seek factfinding with respect to the Service’s 2018 pay decision.12 In its brief and presentation, NAPS identified several issues relating to the Service’s July 20, 2018, decision. However, each of the issues

identified by NAPS simply challenges whether certain features of the Service’s decision satisfy various criteria set forth in the PRA.


but accept, as I must, the primacy of the statu-tory comparability standard in fashioning anaward on the wages and benefits of APWU-repre-sented employees. I also note that even greaterfreedom on my part to determine an appropriatelevel of wages and benefits would be insufficientto provide a meaningful solution to the PostalService’s financial problems.13

Although the Service is given considerable discre-tion in making pay decisions, such decisions must satis-fy the statutory standards of the PRA. As the Courtnoted in National Association of Postal Supervisors, theService must show that, in making pay decisions, it“considered all of the factors directed by the PRA, andthat it applied such factors in establishing adequate andreasonable salary differentials for all supervisors andother managerial personnel.” (Emphasis added)

COMPARABILITY GENERALLYWe are required to make recommendations concern-

ing a system of classified job titles within establishedsalary ranges in comparison to comparable private sec-tor employment.

We find, based on the record before us, that thereare no comparable private sector organizations that per-form all the diverse functions that the Service is re-quired to perform. Moreover, those organizations whichperform certain limited similar functions, like FedExand UPS, do not have anything like the constraints andobligations imposed on the Service. Nor, generally, dothese private sector companies have managers or super-visors operating in comparable work structures or hav-ing similar responsibilities.

We further find that the Service failed to satisfy itsstatutory obligation when it issued its July 20, 2018, de-cision without conducting any sort of market survey ex-amining comparable levels of work in the private sector.The Service did not undertake a market analysis untilafter NAPS requested factfinding, which was well after itissued its pay decision. Furthermore, the record demon-strates that the Service had not done a market analysissince it presented an analysis in the context of the 2012

factfinding proceeding, which analysis also was doneafter the issuance of the Service’s pay decision and afterthe request for factfinding had been filed. The Panelnotes that the Service’s own expert was of the opinionthat a proper market analysis should be done at leastevery two or three years.14

SUPERVISOR DIFFERENTIAL ADJUSTMENTThe Supervisor Differential Adjustment (“SDA”) for-

mula is the mechanism by which the Service adjusts theminimum and maximum salaries within the EAS Sched-ule in order to maintain an adequate salary differentialbetween rank-and-file bargaining unit employees andthe Grade 15 through 19 supervisors who directly super-vise two or more subordinates. The practice has been toprovide a minimum salary for front-line supervisor posi-tions that is at least 5% above that of the base salary forthe most populous supervised title in the appropriateSDA Position Group.15 There appear to be four separatePosition Groups, with one of the Position Groups beinga “catch all” group. Therefore, every time the bench-mark bargaining unit receives a wage increase, the SDAminimum salary is increased. According to NAPS, SDAapplies to approximately 27,000 EAS employees who ac-tually supervise two or more subordinates, although itaffects far fewer due to the manner in which the PostalService calculates the SDA.

The Service used an exceedingly broad-based calcu-lus when it applied its own stated intention to establisha 5% differential between EAS employees and the craftgroups they supervise. The Service used a single gradelevel from a single craft on which to base the 5% calcu-lation. That approach results in a broad but highly inex-act application of the differential. The Service justifiesthis approach on the basis of what can best be describedas practicality and administrative convenience.16 Unfor-tunately, the Service’s overly broad approach has, inmany instances, resulted in what we believe to be un-reasonable and inadequate pay differentials when ap-plied to individual supervisors. In order to effectuate thestatutory requirement for a supervisor differential, thecalculation should be based on more numerous group-ings of employees rather than a single group.

13 Service Exhibit A13, pp. 5-614 December 11, 2018, Hearing Transcript, p. 25515 The Panel notes that the Service’s expert stated that the supervisor differential in the private sector typically ranges between 10% and

20%, with supervisor differentials in employers with unionized workforces typically being higher than in employers with non-unionizedworkforces. December 11, 2018, Hearing Transcript, pp. 236, 251

16 December 10, 2018, Hearing Transcript, pp. 68-69



The Service’s approach has resulted in many thou-sands of Field EAS managers and supervisors receivingless than the Service’s own 5% target differential evendisregarding the issue of whether the craft members’overtime should be included in the comparison. We rec-ognize, as the Service argues, that applying 5% togroups of employees supervised by each individual su-pervisor or manager would be an excessively burden-some and time-consuming task. Nor is the suggestionby NAPS that the NALC base rate simply be substitutedfor the Clerks’ rate a reasonable solution; it is rather aresults oriented change.

We believe that the statute requires a calculationthat is much more precise than that which is used bythe Service. Using the compensation levels of a singlegrade level from a single craft within one of only fourPosition Groups does not result in the differential beingeffectively applied to the significant number of man-agers and supervisors, in terms of both the minimumand maximum salaries within a range. The Panel be-lieves that there are several ways to approach thisissue,17 and that it can best be dealt with between theparties in the context of the working group that we arehereinafter recommending.

In regard to the effect of the current SDA on themaximum salaries within the ranges,18 the Panel notesthat the failure to increase the maximums has the effectof compressing supervisor salaries with those of subordi-nates. While the result is, in all likelihood, a differentialin excess of 5%, it nonetheless has the effect of limitingor eliminating salary increases to a significant numberof EAS employees who are at or near the top of their re-spective salary ranges.19 Although the Service compen-sates employees who reach the maximum of their re-spective salary ranges with lump-sum payments, thistechnique deprives such employees of the long-termbenefit of a pay raise.

Pursuant to the Service’s SDA program, an em-ployee who receives a lump-sum payment in lieu of araise loses the benefit of compounding raises as wellas the forever benefit of the raise itself, whereas em-ployees who are not at the maximum receive a foreverbenefit of a raise. Therefore, we believe that in order

to maintain an adequate and reasonable salary differ-ential and to treat all EAS employees equitably, theService should increase the maximums within the re-spective ranges.

NAPS’ insistence that craft overtime work should beincluded when making the differential calculation is adifficult issue. While craft overtime work raises craft payand narrows the differential if not counted in the differ-ential calculation, craft employees actually workedthose additional hours, whereas EAS managers and su-pervisors did not. Field EAS managers and supervisorswould nonetheless gain the benefit of the craft overtimepay by including it in the differential calculation eventhough they did not actually work comparable over-time hours. Thus, including craft overtime in applyingthe 5% differential may not be an apples-to-applescomparison.

However, while certain Field EAS managers and su-pervisors perform overtime work (at regular pay), theopportunity and amount of overtime are not nearlythat of craft employees. In this regard, the Panel is trou-bled by an example that was provided in which a craftemployee and a NAPS-represented supervisor work fivehours of overtime, and because of the lack of a suffi-cient differential and the disparity in overtime pay cal-culations, the craft employee would earn more for thepay period than the supervisor.20

“The Service’s application of the SDA using

an exceedingly broad calculus involving the

most populous supervised group of titles as

a benchmark has resulted in serious flaws

in meeting the statutory requirement for an

adequate and reasonable differential be-

tween Field EAS employees and the craft

employees that they supervise.”

17 See NAPS’ Post-Hearing Brief in which it suggests separating out from the “All Other Eligible” position group the position of SupervisorCustomer Service and any other EAS positions that supervise craft positions with base salaries greater than their supervisors.

18 See Joint Exhibit I which indicates that as of the date of the hearing, there were approximately 4,065 EAS employees at the top of theirrespective salary ranges.

19 December 10, 2018, Hearing Transcript, pp. 280-28120 December 10, 2018, Hearing Transcript, p. 98


Presumably, as FLSA-exempt salaried employees, EASsupervisor’s and manager’s higher pay levels are set toaccount for the relative unavailability of overtime pay.Nonetheless, the Panel recognizes that the significantimpact of overtime on total craft pay may in some in-stances negate any differential and undermine the statu-tory intention of maintaining an SDA.

It is evident to us that some refinement in the SDAcalculation is required21 to better reflect the multitude ofcraft groupings under supervisors and managers to pro-duce a reasonable and appropriate result. Moreover, it ap-pears, based on the evidence that the Service is findingthat non-career employees22 rather than experienced ca-reer employees are moving up into the supervisory andmanagerial ranks, another indication of the inadequacyof the differential calculation.23 This adversely impactsthe Service as it is not able to promote experienced craftemployees into supervision and management.

We find, based on the record, that the Service’s ap-plication of the SDA using an exceedingly broad calcu-lus involving the most populous supervised group of ti-tles as a benchmark has resulted in serious flaws inmeeting the statutory requirement for an adequate andreasonable differential between Field EAS employeesand the craft employees that they supervise. We furtherfind that the SDA, as applied, may very well fail to at-tract qualified and capable supervisory staff.

PAY FOR PERFORMANCEThe Service has adopted a “Pay-for-Performance”

(“PFP”) program to determine the amount of pay in-creases that EAS employees may receive. PFP is the solemechanism by which EAS employees could receive wageincreases each year other than through a promotion orthe Supervisor Differential Adjustment (SDA).

The PFP is an extremely complex system that con-sists of a 15-box matrix. PFP increases are based on theNational Performance Assessment (NPA), which con-tains a scorecard of 30 or 31 different indicators,24 in-cluding 11 Corporate (national) indicators and 19 or 20

Unit level indicators, both with multiple sub-indicators—Unit has 40 indicators (including sub-indicators) thatmeasure performance at both the corporate (national)and unit (local) level.

According to the Service, unit and corporate per-formance indicators are aligned to improve customerservice, generate revenue, manage costs and enhance aperformance-based culture.25 The Service alone selectsthe Corporate indicators and sub-indicators, as well asthe weight given to each indicator. Every indicator has15 measurements. Certain indicators (i.e. Accidentswhich = 15%)26 are applied to all employees regardlessof title and job function.

At the end of a fiscal year, each unit receives an NPAscore based on how the unit performed relative to itsgoals. In addition, a corporate score is generated basedon how the organization as a whole performed relativeto its goals. The overall performance rating is based onthe NPA Composite Score (Corporate and Unit) roundedto the nearest whole number. The Service determines atwhat level (cell) salary increases will be paid and inwhat amount. An employee’s individual evaluation isno longer considered in the PFP.27

The record reflects that the PFP system, as estab-lished and administered by the Service, fails to providean effective feedback loop to its Field EAS employees.Unlike the SDA, where the Service has implemented anoverly simplistic approach to its calculation, the PFP isoverly complex. Moreover, it appears that the Servicedoes not establish the indicators until well into the fis-cal year.28 In addition, there appears to be a fairnessissue reflected in the wide disparities between geograph-ic regions. For instance the Eastern District scored 3.4(highest sub-district score was 5.25) while the Capitol

“… for FY2009, the Service arbitrarily reduced

the PFP after the fact.”

21 See Recommendation below.22 There was an agreement reached between the Service and craft unions to expand the use of non-career employees to address financial

concerns.23 December 10, 2018, Hearing Transcript, p. 10024 NAPS Exhibit 725 Service Exhibit A7, p. 126 NAPS Exhibit 727 Joint Exhibit 1, p 728 December 10, 2018, Hearing Transcript, pp. 88-89



Metro District scored 1.99 (highest sub-district was3.4).29 An additional example of the lack of fairness isthe Morgan Processing Facility in New York City whereonly 2% of the EAS employees would receive a raise forFY2018 based on the Service’s application of the PFP.30

No apparent reason was forthcoming to explain thesewide disparities, generated from numerous offices andstations, beyond their scores.

The problem with the lack of an effective feedbackloop is compounded by the substantial number of FieldEAS employees who would not receive raises under theService’s July 20, 2018, decision. According to the infor-mation provided by NAPS, for the Fiscal Year 2018, ap-proximately 38.5% of EAS employees will not receivepay increases.31 This is in contrast to the craft employ-ees, all of whom will receive pay increases.

The record further demonstrates that PFP, as appliedby the Service, is not a component of pay structures inthe private sector.32 The record also raises a question inthe Panel’s mind regarding the manner in which theService is administering the PFP. For example, there wasproof that for FY2009, the Service arbitrarily reducedthe PFP after the fact.33 This concern is compounded bythe statement of the Service’s expert who stated that hewould have expected a higher percentage of EAS em-ployees to be at the tops of their respective salary rangesgiven the more senior demographic of that workforce.34

The Panel finds that the PFP system, as constructedand implemented by the Service, does not satisfy thestatutory criteria of comparability and the maintenanceof a well-motivated workforce. The corporate and unitcriteria utilized by the Service are so complex and nu-merous that they are disassociated and attenuated from

the work of the EAS supervisors and managers. As a re-sult, the program fails to effectuate its goals, namely tomotivate its supervisors and managers to effectuate theService’s mission. Evidence of this lack of motivationcan be found in the results of the Postal Pulse NationalDashboard Report and accompanying Analysis.35

LOCALITY PAYThis issue of locality pay should have been part of

any survey of the private sector. There was evidence pre-sented that New York City has a 23% higher cost-of-living area than other cities and regions.

The record establishes that federal government em-ployees receive locality pay in three cities: San Francis-co, Boston and New York City.36 Yet no study was per-formed by the Service on this matter as part of thecompensation determination process with NAPS.

The Service argues that the lack of turnover of EASemployees in high-cost cities shows that it pays marketrates and does not face retention or recruitment prob-lems for EAS employees based on where they live. How-ever, this analysis does not take account of the reluc-tance of employees who come from or live in thesehigh-cost cities to change jobs in the first place, to con-duct job searches, to move from their homes and to up-root their families. The age and experience level of theaverage EAS employee—age 50 and 19 years of experi-ence—explains such reluctance to change jobs.

At the very least, such a study should be performedand should include consideration of the burdens im-

“At the very least … a study should be per-

formed and should include consideration of

the burdens imposed on EAS employees in

high cost areas in comparison with similarly

situated EAS employees elsewhere.”

“The PFP system … does not satisfy the

statutory criteria of comparability and the

maintenance of a well-motivated workforce.”

29 NAPS Exhibit 530 NAPS Exhibit 531 NAPS Exhibit 632 December 10, 2018, Hearing Transcript, p. 300; December 11, 2018, Hearing Transcript, p. 24733 December 10, 2018, Hearing Transcript, p. 11134 December 11, 2018, Hearing Transcript, p. 25035 NAPS Exhibits 3A and B36 December 10, 2018, Hearing Transcript, p. 132


posed on EAS employees in high-cost areas in compari-son with similarly situated EAS employees elsewhere.

We find that the Service’s failure to carefully exam-ine the issue of locality pay prior to the issuance of itsJuly 20, 2018, decision contributed to a failure to satisfyits obligation under the statute. We further find that thelack of locality pay may adversely impact the motiva-tion of a segment of its workforce.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONSAfter careful consideration of the parties’ respective

presentations and positions provided at the factfindinghearing, and in light of the analysis set forth above, thefollowing are the recommendations of the Panel regard-ing the issues submitted for our consideration relatingto the Postal Service’s July 20, 2018 decision.

1. Supervisor Differential Adjustment (SDA).The Panel acknowledges that the Service is accorded

broad discretion in establishing pay differentials be-tween subordinates and their supervisors. Nonetheless,it is our opinion that the broad-based calculus that isutilized by the Service, although administratively con-venient, does not provide adequate and reasonable dif-ferentials in rates of pay between subordinate employ-ees and their supervisors and managers.

It is our further opinion that the manner in whichthe Service has established maximums within the EASsalary ranges is unfair to over 4,000 supervisors andmanagers, as it deprives them of the long-term benefitsof raises in base pay. We believe that such disparatetreatment has a negative impact on the Service’s abilityto attract and retain qualified and capable supervisoryand managerial personnel, adversely impacts pay differ-entials between supervisors and craft employees, andfails to promote the maintenance of a well-motivatedworkforce, all of which are contrary to the PRA.

In its July 20, 2018, pay decision, the Service com-mitted itself to establishing a joint work group “for thepurpose of exploring and resolving issues regardingField EAS salaries and grades.” The specific issues to beexplored regarding Field EAS salaries and grades werenot identified during the hearing, although the Serviceindicated that the PFP program was not one of the is-sues that it would agree to explore. In any event, we be-lieve that it is appropriate for the joint work group toexplore, among other things, the manner in which boththe salary range minimums and maximums are calculat-ed, with particular attention being paid to the concernsraised by this Panel. The work group should make a rec-ommendation regarding modifications to the current

calculus to provide adequate and reasonable differen-tials in rates of pay between subordinate employees andtheir supervisors and managers.

2. Pay-for-Performance System (PFP).As indicated above, the Panel is of the opinion that

the PFP program, as currently designed and administered,is seriously flawed in that it does not accomplish its ob-jectives or comport with the requirements of the PRA.The current PFP program does not have a comparablecounterpart in the private sector. Furthermore, the Ser-vice’s PFP program, as designed and implemented, is toocomplex to be understood by most Field EAS employees.PFP relies on indicators that are not established in timelyfashion and over which most employees have much, ifany, control. Moreover, the PFP program does not pro-vide an effective feedback loop and has resulted in widedisparities among the Service’s geographic regions.

Frankly, there appears to be a significant disconnectbetween much of the Field EAS employees’ work andthe indicators established by the Service, and we viewthis as injecting an unacceptable degree of arbitrarinessinto the design and implementation of the PFP pro-gram. Because of these features, we believe that there isa legitimate question regarding the comparability ofcompensation established under the Service’s PFP pro-gram. Further, we agree with NAPS’ contention that theService’s current PFP program negatively impacts theService’s ability to attract and retain qualified and capa-ble supervisory and managerial personnel and fails topromote the maintenance of a well-motivated workforce, all in contravention of the PRA.

In reaching these conclusions, we note that it is notthe Panel’s role to fix the PFP program. That would bean enormous undertaking for which we do not have thetime or the mandate. The Panel also is mindful of thefact that the PFP affects employees other than those rep-resented by NAPS. Nonetheless, we believe that the defi-ciencies in the PFP program should be addressed by theparties working jointly, as they have repeatedly agreed

“… the Service’s failure to carefully examine

the issue of locality pay prior to the issuance

of its July 20, 2018, decision contributed to

a failure to satisfy its obligation under the

statute.”



to do themselves. While we understand that the Servicewas not willing to include PFP as one of the issues to beexplored and resolved by the joint work group which itagreed to establish in its July 20, 2018, pay decision, webelieve that it is imperative that PFP be included amongthe issues to be explored and resolved by the joint workgroup.

In making this recommendation, we note that the2012 factfinding panel found that a joint NAPS-man-agement effort at reforming and revising the PFP pro-gram should be undertaken. Apparently, such an effortresulted in the elimination of the individual componentof the PFP program, but no other significant changeswere made to the PFP. We think it important that an ob-jective, thorough and comprehensive examination ofthe PFP program be made if the Service is to continue torely on PFP as its predominant method of determiningcompensation for EAS supervisors and managers.

3. Locality Pay.The Panel believes that proof submitted during the

factfinding hearing clearly demonstrated a reasonablebasis for establishing locality pay in certain areas of thecountry. However, we further believe that there was notenough information for the Panel to make specific rec-ommendations regarding locality pay. Therefore, we arerecommending that the joint work group that we arerecommending also examines this issue with the assis-tance of a compensation expert and develops an equi-table, efficient, transparent and statutorily compliant lo-cality pay adjustment program, if warranted.

4. Joint Work Group.The Panel strongly recommends that the parties es-

tablish a joint work group to examine and report on theissues of locality pay, SDA, PFP and, possibly, a perma-nent cost-of-living adjustment for career, non-bargain-ing unit employees who are in Field EAS positions.

When addressing the issues that we have identified,the joint work group should be guided by the Court’sholding in National Association of Postal Supervisors v.U.S. Postal Service, wherein it found that in order to sat-isfy its statutory obligation, the Service must considerall of the statutory criteria in determining compensa-

tion for its supervisory and management personnel.We note that the parties engaged in discussions and

exchanges over compensation from September 17,2017, until the Service issued its pay decision on July20, 2018, and that the Service accepted several of NAPS’suggestions for improvements during that period. Wecommend the Service for its receptivity in this regard.However we note that these changes did not deal withthe underlying compensation issues, including thestructure and functioning of the SDA and the PFP.While the parties agreed to establish a joint work groupto discuss Field EAS salaries and grades, the Service re-jected NAPS’ request that PFP be addressed.

Unless the central compensation issues are ad-dressed, the apparent fissure in the parties’ relationshipwill continue to deepen. This can only hurt the Service.Field EAS supervisors and managers are the linchpin ofthe Service, assuring upper-management’s goals andpolicies are effectively and timely implemented. Theyare the vital link in the chain. The Field EAS supervisorsand managers must be assured that the Service is listen-ing to their concerns and addressing them in a way thatrecognizes their seriousness. The failure to address theseissues as the parties have committed to doing in thepast has undermined their relationship as envisioned byCongress when enacting the PRA.

We recommend a mediation process to ensure effec-tive direct participation in accord with the spirit and in-tent of the PRA. As practitioners in mediation and arbi-tration, we strongly recommend that the joint workgroup engage the services of a mutually selected media-tor for the purpose of assisting the joint work group inidentifying, addressing and achieving consensus regard-ing the issues we have identified, and thereafter makingwritten recommendations to the Service regarding theidentified issues. The work group, working with the as-sistance of a mediator, will go a long way toward re-building trust and unity.

We recommend that a mediator be chosen and di-rectly involved in managing the process to assure that itgoes forward in a timely and effective manner. The par-ties should be transparent in their sharing of informa-tion and, at the outset, mutually adopt a joint model forcost calculations. The mediator should set agendas and

“… the PFP program, as currently designed

and administered, is seriously flawed. …”

“… the lack of locality pay may adversely

impact the motivation of a segment of

[the Service’s] work force.”


a rigorous time table for meetings, discussions and rec-ommendations.

The mediator should assist the joint work group inengaging the services of a mutually selected compensa-tion expert to investigate and/or conduct studies andprovide information, guidance and recommendationsregarding these wage issues. If the parties are not able tojointly select a compensation expert, we suggest thatthe mutually selected mediator be authorized to select acompensation expert.

We think it is important that the issues to be ad-dressed by the joint work group reach finality. The jointwork group should conclude its activities and issue itsreport and recommendations on these issues to the Ser-vice no later than six months from the date when theService renders its final decision on matters covered byfactfinding and set forth in this Report and Recommen-dations. Toward that end, we believe that it would beproductive for the joint work group to make written rec-ommendations to the Service regarding the issues re-solved by the joint work group. With respect to any is-sues on which the joint work group does not agree on arecommendation, we suggest that the mediator issue awritten recommendation, together with the justificationtherefor, which shall be incorporated into the workgroup’s report to the Service.

Consistent with the spirit of 39 U.S.C. §1004(d)(2)(C), we recommend that the Service provide toNAPS written reasons for not accepting and implement-ing any recommendations of the joint work group orthe mediator.

In the course of our deliberations, the Panel consid-ered an alternative, useful approach to resolving chal-lenging and complex issues such as those present here.This alternative approach is known as a “Med-Arb”process under which a neutral first works intensivelywith the parties to reach voluntary agreement, but forthose matters that are still outstanding after time andattention, the neutral assumes the role of an arbitratorand is empowered to make final and binding decisions.However, the Panel recognizes that Med-Arb is not re-quired under the statute and would be strictly a volun-tary process.

5. Retroactive Pay Raises.The Panel recommends that all Field EAS employees

receive retroactive raises in base pay and lump sums as

discussed below. In so recommending, we note that theService provided retroactive pay to the craft employees.It is also our recommendation that changes made aspart of the Service’s decision of July 20, 2018, should beapplied as of that date, rather than at a later date.

Under the current PFP program, for fiscal years2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the Service established as atarget that EAS employees achieve a corporate and unitrating of 6, for which they would receive a 3% sched-uled increase in base pay under the July 20, 2018, paydecision;37 however, the weighted average pay increasefor EAS employees for all but the 2016 fiscal year waswell below the 3% increase due to a significant numberof EAS employees receiving ratings below 6. As previ-ously mentioned, it is the opinion of the Panel that thefailure of EAS employees to achieve ratings that wouldhave provided for an average increase of 3% is attributa-ble, in large part, to deficiencies in the PFP programrather than deficiencies in collective EAS employee jobperformance. Consequently, in addition to recommend-ing that the joint study committee be tasked with iden-tifying improvements to the PFP program, the Panelrecommends that each NAPS-represented employee re-ceive, in addition to raises and/or lump-sum paymentsalready received, the following retroactive increases inbase salary for the following fiscal years, with the caveatthat the amount by which any such increase exceedsthe maximum of an employee’s salary grade will be paidin the form of a lump-sum payment:

FY2017—1.10%FY2018—2.15%.The recommended percentages are calculated by de-

ducting the actual average salary increase received byField EAS employees for FY2017 and FY2018 from the3% target.38 For example, for FY2017, Field EAS employ-ees received an average pay increase (weighted) of 1.9%,which, when deducted from 3%, results in a recom-

37 See NAPS Exhibit 738 The Panel notes that the Service’s expert stated that the average annual salary increase in the private sector over the past two years was 3%.

“Field EAS supervisors and managers must

be assured that the Service is listening to

their concerns and addressing them in a

way that recognizes their seriousness.”



mended pay increase of 1.10% for FY2017. The averagepay increase (weighted) for Field EAS employees for FY2018 was 0.85%.39

6. NAPS Representation—Headquarters and AreaEmployees.

It is the opinion of the Panel that the issue of com-pensation for “Headquarters” and “Area” employees isnot one for which the Panel can or should provide arecommendation. In reaching this conclusion, the Panelis mindful of the history of representation and theMemoranda of Understanding that have been reachedby the parties. The Panel also notes that a determina-tion regarding the scope of NAPS representation is not amatter that falls within the jurisdiction of the Panelunder 39 USCA §1004.

CONCLUSIONWe believe that the purpose of Congress in estab-

lishing criteria for determining compensation and bene-fits, and affording supervisors and managers the right toparticipate in the planning and development of paypolicies and, thereafter, submit pay issues to a factfind-ing process, was to enhance labor relations and reducediscord between the Service and those supervisory andmanagerial employees. Of concern to us is the followingcautionary message contained in the 2012 factfindingreport:

We also wish to raise a word of caution. This is apivotal event in the NAPS-Postal Service history.As noted above, it is the first time that thefactfinding process provided for in the statutehas been invoked. There is considerable risk thatthe events that precipitated use of this processand the contested nature of the facts and inter-est involved could lead the parties’ relationshipdown a more adversarial path. This would notserve the interests of the employees, executives,or the public served by the Postal Service.40

It is the Panel’s impression that communicationsand trust between the Service and NAPS have brokendown, and that the relationship is in dire need of assis-tance. The central features of compensation, SDA andPFP, have serious flaws, which have been identifiedherein and in the past, and which require the focus and

attention of the parties in order to correct them. It ishigh time the parties sit down in a serious way to un-dertake this effort as it is jeopardizing the parties’ vitalrelationship. We firmly believe that the recommenda-tions set forth in this Report will provide NAPS with ameans to directly participate in a meaningful way in theplanning and development of pay policies that affect itsmembers, without divesting the Service of its broadstatutory authority.

We recognize the enormous challenges faced by theService and its supervisors and managers, and we ap-plaud them as they work together toward the fulfill-ment of the Service’s mission.

Respectfully Submitted,

SUSAN E. HALPERIN, Chair

ROBERT S. HITE, Member

JOSHUA M. JAVITS, Member

39 See NAPS Exhibit 640 Service Exhibit A3, p. 4


Viewsfrom the Vice Presidents

By Tony DallojaconoMideast Area Vice President

uestions come up about whatSPAC is and where the moneygoes. Executive Vice President

Ivan D. Butts always speaks aboutSPAC and answers the questions, butI wanted to write a little somethingabout it, too.

The money we con-tribute is allocated to U.S.House and Senate mem-bers and candidates whosupport the Postal Service.We hear from everyoneabout why we can’t dothis and why we can’t dothat. Well, there are rules we mustfollow and regulations to which wemust abide.

We are bound by Title 39, Codeof Federal Regulations. With ourSPAC contributions, we can contin-ue to fight on Capitol Hill to changerules in Title 39 for our benefit. OurSPAC money is contributed to politi-cians who the NAPS HeadquartersLegislative Team feels have war-

ranted our support.We must keep collecting money

to fight for what we believe is right.When I hear the numbers for our“Drive for 5” initiative, I wonder whythose numbers are so low. The easiestway to contribute to SPAC is throughdirect deposit; you don’t think aboutthe money being deducted.

If every member hadjust $5 deducted fromeach paycheck, it wouldtotal approximately$135,000 per pay peri-od—$3,510,000 a year.That amount is astonish-ing and could be accom-plished with just $5 per

paycheck from every NAPS member.When you think about that

number and what NAPS can do forits members by contributing to ourrepresentatives and senators to helpchange the Postal Service, it’s never-ending. You can’t buy a cup of coffeeeach day for $5 a week. For all thesmokers, that is what you pay for apack of cigarettes a day, at least.

We need to get everyone on

board. Contributing to SPAC is justas important as increasing our mem-bership. Without our SPAC funds,where would we be? The money alsois allocated for members to go tolocal events and visit their lawmak-ers. For every person who visits theirpoliticians locally, it counts as 10votes.

Let’s get out there and fight forour rights as postal employees andsave our future and the future of thiscountry. Why do you think Amazon,FedEx and UPS are taking back pack-age delivery? Not because they thinkit’s cheaper for them to do it, but be-cause we continue to do a great jobdelivering. They now fear the PostalService. Let’s get out there and provethat “We Deliver.”

Contribute to SPAC so we canhave a future for those working andour future employees who can saythey retired from the United StatesPostal Service, the most trusted gov-ernment agency in another 244years.

[email protected]

Where Our SPAC Money Goes

Q

By Marilyn WaltonWestern Region Vice President

he Northwest Area’s five-statetraining, held in Kalispell MT,was hosted by Northwest Area

Vice President Cindy McCrackenand Montana State Branch 929.Montana State President Rick Kinds-vatter welcomed attendees to Mon-tana for a full two days of training.

NAPS delegates traveled from

Washington, Oregon, Idaho andMontana; five first-time delegates at-tended. NAPS President Brian Wag-ner was the resident officer assignedto this event.

USPS Special Agent Brian Gillprovided an informative OIG presen-tation. Monique Kroger, USPS en-gagement representative, was an out-standing motivational speaker.Dakotas District Manager DougStephens presented an update on the

district’s activities.Several of Stephens’ staff mem-

bers also attended, including MPOOsAlan Serfoss and Dominic De Marti-no. Additional presenters from thedistrict provided updated informa-tion on Human Resources, vacancypostings and eCareer tips and tech-niques.

Jack Berry, a NAPS DisciplinaryDefense Fund Provider (DDF) repre-sentative, provided extensive, in-

NAPS Training Abounds in Big Sky Country

T


depth training on how to representand prepare adverse action cases forsubmission to the NAPS’ DDF Fund.He said that, when beinga representative, answerfive key questions: Who?What? When? Where?and Why? Jack advisedthis is the key to startinga clear, concise DDF rep-resentation package.

Wagner reviewed train-ing on documenting inappropriatebehavior during USPS telecons as out-lined on the naps.org website under“Documents.” I offered a presenta-tion on workplace bullying. The

Northwest Area raised $1,361 forSPAC through its silent auction, in-kind gift donations and a 50-50 raffle.

A lot of dynamic in-formation was presentedat the two-day training.We had a great time,good food and fellowshipand warm hospitality inthe Big Sky country. Aspecial thanks to Branch929 President Rick, Vice

President Dora Felicioni, TreasurerTabitha Stephenson, Secretary KallyPermann and Second Vice PresidentBrandi Lien.

[email protected]

Northwest Area delegates attending the Northwest Area training represented Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana.

Dakotas District Manager Doug Stephenswith Montana State Branch 929 PresidentRick Kindsvatter and Treasurer TabithaStephenson.

First-timers, from left: Lataya Powell, Brenda Flowers,Raheim Martinez, Roger Fulps and Raomon Aragon.

From left: Montana State Branch 929 Vice President Dora Felicioni, Treasurer TabithaStephenson, MPOO (A) Alan Serfoss, MPOO Dominic De Martino, NAPS Northwest AreaVice President Cindy McCracken and Branch 929 President Rick Kindsvatter.


Bob LeviDirector of Legislative &Political Affairs

im Lovell, former astro-naut and commander of the star-

crossed Apollo 13, once said: “Thereare people who make things happen,there are people who watch things

happen and there are people whowonder what happened. To be suc-cessful, you need to be a person whomakes things happen.” His three-member crew conquered crisis withconfidence, resilience, ingenuity andvision. They made things happen.

Periodically, Postal Service believ-ers need to assess into which catego-ry they fall. Regrettably, some lan-guish in the “what happened”category. As threats revolve aroundthem, they are oblivious to factorsthat may impact their livelihood.

It is far too easy to be compla-cent and attend a postal watch party.This is the group with which mostassociate. They passively observeCongress’ protracted deliberationsand are in awe at stark presidentialpronouncements.

NAPS members cannot affordwillful ignorance or relaxed compla-cency; there’s just too much risk.Front-line postal managers and su-pervisors must be engaged and out-spoken in ensuring the continued vi-ability of a universal postaloperation.

Consequently, NAPS strives toanticipate legislative and regulatoryaction and, thereby, helps constructthe architecture of the Postal Service

of the future. Warmed-overand rejected proposals ofyesteryear will not sustainan innovative and vibrantnational, universal com-munications and logistics

network. Furthermore, proposingpolitically untenable policies notonly is a waste of time and effort,but undermines the much-needed

political good essential to enactingconstructive and meaningful postallegislation.

As of the date this issue of ThePostal Supervisor went to press, apostal reform bill had yet to be in-troduced or considered by the HouseOversight and Reform Committee.Some members of the committee at-tributed the delay, in part, to the tar-diness of the Postal Service’s antici-pated 10-year business plan.

As mentioned in last month’sissue of the magazine, Rep. MarkMeadows indicated he was led to be-lieve the plan would have been sub-mitted back in January. He was lividthat the Postal Service was seriouslyconsidering reducing delivery fre-quency as part of the plan.

In late June, the Postal Servicebriefed a number of postal stake-holders on the principles underlyingthe yet-to-be-shared plan. A workingdraft of the plan found its way to themedia; in Washington, it’s hard tokeep a secret. The leaked plan bears aremarkable resemblance to a postalplan fashioned by McKinsey andCompany, a global consulting firmretained by the Postal Service and re-leased by the agency in March 2010.

Among the decade-old recom-

mendations were reductions in de-livery frequency, eliminating postal-operated retail locations, cutting em-ployee benefits, downgrading speedof delivery and expanding the use ofcentralized mail delivery. In addi-tion, the 2010 McKinsey report sug-gested lifting the inflation cap onpostage rates, modestly developingnew products and services, scraping

the retiree health prefundingrequirement and authorizingfederal appropriations to for-tify the Postal Service’s uni-versal service obligation. Toparaphrase Ecclesiastes,

there’s very little new under the sun. What is scariest, however, is the

2010 report’s prophetic projection ofmail volume. In March 2010, McKin-sey, with data provided by the USPS,projected total mail volume wouldfall from 177 billion pieces in 2009to 150 billion pieces in 2020. In fact,mail volume hit that number priorto 2017 and, in 2018, the volumefell to 146.4 billion pieces. As a re-sult, it is crucial that whatever leg-islative scheme is contemplated byCongress or the Postal Service, itmust include a robust plan to ex-pand the menu of postal productsand services.

Yes, we all agree the retireehealth liability must be addressed;yes, we all agree the Postal Servicemust have more pricing flexibility;and, yes, we all agree that affordableand accessible postal services mustbe available throughout the nation.However, the path to postal sustain-ability also must include break-through innovation that will gener-ate sufficient revenue to stabilizepostal finances.

The shrink-to-survive mentalityis self-defeating and counterproduc-tive. For this reason, NAPS will be

The Path to Sustainability MustInclude Breakthrough Innovation

LegislativeUpdate

J



n June 6, NAPS Director of Legisla-

tive & Political Affairs Bob Levi

conducted his weekly NAPS Chat

with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-

NC). Levi introduced Meadows by describing

him as a committed conservative and astute

listener to all sides of legislative debate.

Meadow’s partnership with Rep. Elijah Cum-

mings (D-MD), chairman of the House Over-

sight and Reform Committee, and Rep. Gerry

Connolly (D-VA), chairman of the Subcom-

mittee on Operations (with jurisdiction over

the Postal Service), is noteworthy regarding

their work developing postal reform legislation,

Levi observed.

Meadows has been a leading proponent of a

viable, universal Postal Service. He represents a

rural district in North Carolina that is reliant on

the USPS. Levi asked Meadows what impact the

Postal Service and universal service have on his

district in the era of e-commerce.

“The contact most Americans have with a

government or quasi-government entity is the

Postal Service,” Meadows responded. “They look

at the USPS as not just delivering mail, packages

and e-commerce; many postmasters and postal

employees are part of the family. People go to

their local post office to not just share the news

of the day, but gather in fellowship.”

Meadows said it’s imperative to have a long-

term postal

system that’s sus-

tainable and flexible enough to meet the de-

mands of e-commerce. “We need to put in the

political capital, in a bipartisan way, so we can

get legislation across the finish line,” he stressed.

“The great thing about Elijah Cummings and

Gerry Connolly that I appreciate about them is

they always are honest and represent their con-

stituencies in a forthright way. They allow us to

By Karen Young, NAPS editor

Rep.Mark MeadowsProviding Bipartisan Support

for Postal Legislation

O

Rep.Mark MeadowsProviding Bipartisan Support

for Postal Legislation

O


negotiate in an appropriate mannerto hopefully get something done onbehalf of the American people.”

Levi asked Meadows about hisrole as chairman of the FreedomCaucus, which is based on a conser-vative agenda. Meadows explainedhe created the caucus when he wasnew to Congress to get some lever-age. “Even though my Democraticcolleagues may not agree with myposition, what they do admire is Iam willing to stand up for principleswhether it’s against Democrats or Re-publicans. When the caucus signs onto legislation, it gives it the conser-vative ‘Good Housekeeping Seal ofApproval’ and allows other conserva-tives to sign onto legislation.”

Levi asked Meadows if there wasany tension with him being a propo-nent of postal reform and membersof the Freedom Caucus who may notbe too keen on stabilizing a govern-ment agency. Meadows was frank inagreeing there is tension; somemembers support privatization ofthe Postal Service and some want tohave it declared bankrupt.

“I’ve looked at this as a way wecan make sure we keep it sustain-able,” he said. “They’ve given me alittle bit of grace and are allowingme to try and get the most conserva-tive bill across the finish line. Someof them will reluctantly support iteven though it may not be their firstpriority in terms of a legislativeagenda.”

Regarding Meadows’ and theFreedom Caucus’ close relationshipwith President Trump, Levi askedhim what the president’s views mightbe on the Postal Service and Mead-ows’ efforts to sustain the agency.

Meadows shared that he’s had anumber of conversations personallywith the president about the PostalService. “I think, from his perspec-tive,” Meadows explained, “he wantsto make sure a postal system actually

does survive. I can’t imagine himsupporting anything that would un-dermine the long-term ability of thePostal Service to provide services torural America, as well as those in thecities and suburbs.

“That being said, I think he be-lieves we’ve got to find a profitablemargin and some of those areas arenot profitable. When you look atrural America, there are areas notprofitable, but just because they’renot doesn’t mean we can ignorethose constituents. We’ve got to finda way to make sure we serve them.At the end of the day, I see a combi-nation of reform and perhaps someassistance in some areas to ensureeveryone can get mail delivered totheir homes.”

Levi referred to the report issuedby the Task Force on the U.S. PostalSystem this past December andasked if there had been further con-versations with the task force. Mead-ows said he has had conversationswith the task force and indicated tomembers he doesn’t see the report assomething that can be implemented.“We’ll try and take the best fromtheir report,” he affirmed, “and craftit into a piece of legislation that

hopefully addresses the lion’s shareof that, but also does the Americanpeople and the president a service interms of making sure we don’t haveto come back and revisit this issue.”

Levi touched on remarks made atthe House Oversight and ReformCommittee’s April 30 hearing on thefinancial condition of the Postal Ser-vice. Meadows had expressed frustra-tion at the lack of a 10-year planfrom the Postal Service and com-mented he could turn from being anadvocate to being an adversary.

“I told the Postmaster Generalthat I want a 10-year plan thatmakes the agency viable,” hestressed. “I want our postal workersand the whole postal system not tohave to worry about what Congressis doing tomorrow or the next dayor the next day; let’s get it done. IfI’m going to take a tough vote, let’smake it one tough vote—not multi-ple tough votes.

“I’m optimistic that, at the endof the day, we’ll be able to find somecommon ground. It would take a lotfor me not to be an advocate and gothe other way. One of those thingsthat would get me to go the otherway is five-day service. The only

NAPS Director of Legislative & Political Affairs Bob Levi and Rep. Mark Meadows discussedthe status of postal reform legislation.


troubling and negative tone I wouldgive you right now is I continue tohear that the Board of Governorsand the Postmaster General are con-sidering five-day service or a triggeron five-day service. There is biparti-san opposition to that.”

Levi pointed out that FedEx re-cently was considering going toseven-day delivery for parcels and re-claiming about 2 million addressesfrom the Postal Service. Meadowssaid he met with Connolly and Rep.Stephen Lynch (D-MA) over the past48 hours about a bill they’re tryingto get out of committee. “I said Iwould support seven-day delivery ofboth parcels and mail,” he said, “butI’m not going to go seven days forparcels, five-day delivery, then a trig-ger that, candidly, is not really wellthought out.

“We’re getting into a 24-hours aday, seven days a week kind of e-com-merce environment. And to pull backon that is ignoring the obvious.”

Levi asked Meadows if six-daydelivery—at the minimum—is partof the universal service obligation.“Yes,” Meadows responded. “Andthat puts me in conflict with someof my Republican colleagues. Uni-versal service really is a six-day foun-dational principle in terms of whatwe need to count on. If it’s not sixdays, what makes it five? Why notthree or two? At this point, six daysis where we need to be.”

“And particularly with regard torural areas,” Levi added. “Yes,” Mead-ows responded. “My district is affect-ed the most. I say ‘my district,’ butdistricts like mine—all of rural Ameri-ca, where the post offices are leastprofitable. Getting a package to mymom, who is two miles off the beatenpath, is not profitable; I get that. Butthere’s an obligation from a federalstandpoint that we have to deliverthere. It’s key whether you live in acity or a suburb or out in the sticks

that we provide those services.”“That’s the commonality among

Cummings, Connolly and you,” Leviaffirmed. “Cummings represents aninner-city urban area, Connolly rep-resents a suburban Washington areaand you represent a rural North Car-olina area. The common interest isproviding accessible, affordable mailservice.”

“One hundred percent!” Mead-ows declared. “If you can make Eli-jah Cummings, Gerry Connolly andMark Meadows happy, most ofAmerica will be happy with that.”

“In addition to the legislativecommon ground you have,” Levicontinued, “you actually get alongwell with each other and peopledon’t understand that.” “They’redear friends,” Meadows reiterated. “Icare about them personally.”

“A personal reflection here,” Leviadded. “Not enough people knowabout those types of issues—that youcan fight like cats and dogs over leg-islation and be very strong partisans,but relationships that build friend-ships and help bridge gaps really areinvaluable.”

“They are,” Meadows stressed. “Irespect Elijah Cummings and GerryConnolly. There are people who un-derestimate Chairman Cummings;he’s wickedly smart and strategic ineverything he does. But what I likethe best about him is he never willlie to me. He’s shot straight with meat times when it would have beeneasier for him to equivocate; that’swhat I appreciate about him themost.”

Levi asked when Meadowsthought a postal bill would be intro-duced. “I’m hopeful we can intro-duce something next week,” he said,“and proceed quickly to markup inthe next two to three weeks. Every-thing suggests that’s where we’regoing to be. June is the key month.”

Asked if there would be a hear-

ing, Meadows replied they hope togo straight to markup. “We hope totake a bill very similar to the bill thathad unanimous support out of com-mittee last time,” he explained,“make a few modifications and havethat come in as a manager’s amend-ment to see if we still can keep bipar-tisan support for that. That’s the realquestion: What will that manager’samendment look like?”

Levi concluded the chat by sayingNAPS represents the front-line postalmanagers. “They do,” Meadows inter-jected, “and they do a fine job, by theway.”

“What advice would you giveNAPS members seeking to ensure a vi-able, accessible, affordable and uni-versal Postal Service and help you se-cure meaningful, constructive postalreform?” Levi asked.

“There are two things they needto do,” Meadows said. “Pick up thephone and personally call theirmember of Congress and their sena-tors. And by picking up the phone, Imean personally calling and askingto speak to their member of Con-gress and telling them, ‘We needhelp.’

“If they have a personal relation-ship, that’s really good. Even if theydon’t have a personal relationship,they still should call. And share theirplea for help with their fellow em-ployees. The more phone calls thebetter; if Congress can’t see the light,they can feel the heat.

“The second thing is when thereare compromises—and both sides aregoing to end up compromising—ap-plaud those compromises instead ofcomplaining. If they complain, com-plain privately. I’ve suggested I’mwilling to compromise on a fewthings; I think my Democratic col-leagues are willing to compromise.Those things needed to be applauded.

“If they can do those two things,I think it will help.”

To authorize your allotment online, you will need yourUSPS employee ID number and PIN; if you do not knowyour PIN, you will be able to obtain it at Step 3 below.

Go to https://liteblue.usps.gov to access PostalEASE.

Under Employee App-Quick Links, choose PostalEASE.

Click on “I agree.”

Enter your employee ID number and password.

Click on “Allotments/Payroll NTB.”

Click on “Continue.”

Click on “Allotments.”

Enter Bank Routing Number (from worksheet below),enter account number (see worksheet), enter accountfrom drop-down menu as “checking” and enter theamount of your contribution.

Click “Validate,” then “Submit.” Print a copy for yourrecords.

To authorize your allotment by phone, call PostalEASE,toll-free, at 1-877-477-3273 (1-877-4PS-EASE). You willneed your USPS employee ID number and PIN.

When prompted, select one for PostalEASE.

When prompted, enter your employee ID number.

When prompted, please enter your USPS PIN.

When prompted, press “2” for payroll options.

When prompted, press “1” for allotments.

When prompted, press “2” to continue.

Follow prompts to add a new allotment.

Use the worksheet to give the appropriate information to set up an allotment for SPAC.

Contributions via USPS Payroll Deduction

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Make Contributing to SPAC a Habit:

PostalEASE Allotments/Net to Bank Worksheet

On your next available allotment (you have three):

• Routing Number (nine digits): 121000248

• Financial Institution Name: Wells Fargo (this willappear after you enter the routing number).

• Account Number (this is a 17-digit number that starts with “772255555” and ends with your eight-digit employee ID number):

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

(Example: 77225555512345678).

• Type of Account (drop-down menu): Checking

• Amount per Pay Period (please use the 0.00 format; the “$” is already included): __________.

7 7 2 2 5 5 5 5 5


2019 SPAC Contributors

Top 2019 SPAC Contributor

Butts, Ivan PA Branch 355

President’s Ultimate SPAC ($1,000+)

Boisvert, Michael CA Branch 159Walton, Marilyn CA Branch 77Mullins, Kym FL Branch 81Wagner, Brian IL Branch 255Foley, Paul MA Branch 120Wileman, Dotty MD Branch 923Geter, John NC Branch 183Amash, Joseph NY Branch 83Gawron, Steven NY Branch 27Roma, Thomas NY Branch 68Warden, James NY Branch 100Butts, Ivan PA Branch 355Austin, Jessie TX Branch 122

May Contributors

President’s Ultimate SPAC ($1,000+)

Boisvert, Michael CA Branch 159Wagner, Brian IL Branch 255Gawron, Steven NY Branch 27

VP Elite ($750)

Meana, Frances CA Branch 159Wong, John CA Branch 497Barone, Thomas NY Branch 202Gawron, Dennis NY Branch 27Aaron, Donna TN Branch 947Green Jr., Richard VA Branch 98

Secretary’s Roundtable ($500)

Bruffett, Shawn AZ Branch 376Salmon, James AZ Branch 246Blythe, Stephanie CA Branch 127Evans, Bridget CA Branch 159Rominger, Jackie CA Branch 77Swygert, Vontina CA Branch 127Van Horn, Gail FL Branch 154Williams, Carolyn FL Branch 146Wooley, Josephine GA Branch 82Lum, Chuck HI Branch 214Maxwell, Sherry IL Branch 255

Murphy, Gregory MA Branch 102Johnson, Craig MO Branch 36Marriott, Beverly NC Branch 177Englerth, Scott NY Branch 11Mulidore, Chuck SC Branch 225Green, Shri TN Branch 41Cooper, Karen TX Branch 124Cox, Lloyd VA Branch 526Mott III, George VA Branch 132McCracken, Cindy WA Branch 61

Chairman’s Club ($250)

Melchert, Pamela AK Branch 435Carson, John AL Branch 901Brown, Carl CA Branch 94Cherry, Hayes CA Branch 466Danzy, Marsha CA Branch 197Grayson, Yolanda CA Branch 39Jones, Marilyn CA Branch 39Murillo, Mariel CA Branch 466Randle, Carol CA Branch 39Stiles, Sarah CA Branch 244Trevena, April CA Branch 94Kerns, John CO Branch 141Vorreyer, Leslie FL Branch 353Moore, Kevin GA Branch 281Lum, Laurie HI Branch 214Norton, Paul IN Branch 8Moreno, Richard MA Branch 498Krzycki Jr., Kenneth MI Branch 508Mooney, Dan MN Branch 16Davis, Lisa MO Branch 131McKiernan, Michael NJ Branch 74Santiago, Jose NJ Branch 538Timothy, Pat NJ Branch 548Blakney, Robert NY Branch 336Morrissey, Phyllis NY Branch 164Adams, Jeanine PA Branch 20Holt, Brian RI Branch 105Brooks, Lamarcus TN Branch 41Lomba, John TX Branch 103Trevino, Barbara TX Branch 124Garrett, Donald VA Branch 98Edwards, Calvin WA Branch 31Gruetzmacher, Bjoern WA Branch 61


Taylor, Georgia WA Branch 31Joers, Julie WI Branch 72

Supporter ($100)

Studdard, Dwight AL Branch 45Amador, Leonard CA Branch 197Bradley, Roxanne CA Branch 127Cruz, Cheryl CA Branch 497Donnelly, Linda CA Branch 497Francisco, Daryel CA Branch 159Gavin, Angela CA Branch 159Gibson, Lelton CA Branch 88Gishi, Sharon CA Branch 94Graham, Mardina CA Branch 88Gray, Edna CA Branch 127Gray, Glenn CA Branch 127Hodges, Leticeia CA Branch 39Jackson-Kelley, Patricia CA Branch 39Knox, Jacqueline CA Branch 127Martin, Mary CA Branch 159McClinton, Velma CA Branch 39McCombs, James CA Branch 466Merrill, Robin CA Branch 497Odell, Heather CA Branch 159Patterson, Charles CA Branch 497Petty, Ralph CA Branch 77Profit, Youvet CA Branch 39Rahming, Karyn CA Branch 77Robinson, Jackie CA Branch 39Sutton, Catherine CA Branch 373Thomas, Linda CA Branch 88Thompson, Carolyn CA Branch 88Walker, Robin CA Branch 39Warren, Cherie CA Branch 466Williams, Alma CA Branch 266Annon, Cynthia CO Branch 141Donegan, Margie CT Branch 5Cox, Jacqueline FL Branch 93Fulcher, Sandra FL Branch 146McPhee-Johnson, Tayloria FL Branch 146Sims, Reginald GA Branch 82Alos, Kanani HI Branch 214

Region Aggregate:1. Western ................$27,092.102. Eastern.................$23,690.853. Southern ..............$21,079.004. Northeast .............$19,972.005. Central .................$18,256.00

Area Aggregate:1. Pacific ..................$17,415.502. Capitol-Atlantic.....$14,655.553. New York ..............$12,000.004. Southeast .............$10,097.505. Mideast ..................$8,154.506. Illini ........................$6,651.007. New England ..........$5,816.008. Texas......................$5,739.509. Northwest...............$4,944.0010. Rocky Mountain....$4,732.6011. North Central ........$4,294.0012. Michiana ..............$3,967.0013. MINK ....................$3,344.0014. Pioneer.................$3,026.8015. Cotton Belt ...........$2,743.0016. Central Gulf ..........$2,499.00

State Aggregate:1. California..............$16,065.502. New York ..............$11,955.003. Florida ....................$8,442.504. Illinois.....................$6,736.005. Texas......................$6,025.00

Members by Region:1. Central................................682. Southern.............................563. Eastern ...............................544. Western ..............................525. Northeast............................38

Region Per Capita:1. Western .........................$4.662. Northeast.......................$4.023. Eastern..........................$3.994. Central...........................$3.915. Southern........................$3.57

Area Per Capita:1. New York .......................$9.802. Pacific ...........................$8.833. Rocky Mountain.............$7.374. Illini ...............................$7.165. Capitol-Atlantic..............$6.086. Michiana .......................$4.797. Southeast ......................$4.418. Pioneer..........................$3.959. Texas.............................$3.9010. New England ...............$3.0411. Mideast .......................$2.9512. North Central ...............$2.4913. Northwest....................$2.4814. Central Gulf .................$2.2215. MINK ...........................$2.2116. Cotton Belt...................$2.00

State Per Capita:1. Hawaii ...........................$9.352. Maine ............................$9.333. South Dakota.................$8.854. Maryland .......................$7.655. Arizona ..........................$6.14

Aggregate by Region:1. Southern ................$9,646.002. Central ...................$9,439.503. Western ..................$9,350.004. Eastern...................$8,680.855. Northeast ...............$5,406.00

National Aggregate: National Per Capita:$110,089.95 $4.03

Statistics reflect monies collected from Jan. 1 to May 31, 2019

SPAC Scoreboard

• • • • •

• • • • •

Drive for 5

‘Drive for 5’ WinnerRicky Hilliard, North Suburban Facility, IL,Branch 489, was the winner of the firstquarter’s “Drive for 5” SPAC drawing. Hereceived a $200 gift card.


Iyoki, Wendy HI Branch 214Parker, Laroma HI Branch 214Brady, Derrick IL Branch 17Cook, Carol IL Branch 14Matuszak, Kevin IL Branch 489Pitts, La Neda IL Branch 14Warren, Susan IL Branch 255Macias, Juan KS Branch 205McCartney, Kelly KS Branch 919Neece, Dawn KS Branch 205Harmon, Rosemary KY Branch 920Carter, Tonious LA Branch 421Sevalia, Rosalind LA Branch 73Duffy, John MA Branch 43Misserville, James MA Branch 498Berger, Ricky MD Branch 531Brownfield, Patricia MD Branch 531Campbell, Maxine MD Branch 42Gramblin, Reginald MD Branch 531Jones, Anthony MD Branch 531Mason Jr., Garland MD Branch 592Hafford, Darrell ME Branch 96Burcar, Robert MI Branch 508Byrum, Jimmy MI Branch 508

Cogar, Laurie MI Branch 268Hardin, Donald MI Branch 142Hurless-Byrum, Ruth MI Branch 508Kuiper, Bruce MN Branch 16Moore, Olin MN Branch 16Moudy, John MN Branch 16Newcomb-Evans, Theresa MN Branch 926Brown, Latasha MO Branch 131Bye, Kevin MO Branch 119Dennis Jr., Edward NJ Branch 53Lewis, Gillian OH Branch 2Lahmann, Joseph OR Branch 276Simpson, Pamela OR Branch 66Lehman, Jason PA Branch 554Mitchell, Denise TN Branch 41Lyons, Lisa TX Branch 428Nettles, Mark TX Branch 9Howe, Steven WA Branch 61Ware, Michael WA Branch 61Williams, Arthur WA Branch 61Maggioncalda, Sharon WI Branch 213Sederholm Marti, Susan WI Branch 72Sprewer, Victoria WI Branch 72Baldwin, Craig WV Branch 212

SPACContribution

FormAggregate contributions made in acalendar year correspond with thesedonor levels:

$1,000—President’s Ultimate SPAC

$750—VP Elite

$500—Secretary’s Roundtable

$250—Chairman’s Club

$100—Supporter

Current as of February 2019

Federal regulations prohibit SPACcontributions by branch check orbranch credit card.

Mail to:SPAC1727 KING ST STE 400ALEXANDRIA VA 22314-2753

Contribution Amount $___________ Branch #___________

Name________________________________________________________

Home Address/PO Box ___________________________________________

City__________________________________________ State__________

ZIP+4__________________________________ Date _________________

Employee ID Number (EIN) or Civil Service Annuitant (CSA) Number ________________________________

Enclosed is my voluntary contribution to SPAC by one of the following methods:

❏ Check or money order made payable to SPAC; do not send cash

❏ Credit card (circle one): Visa American Express MasterCard Discover

Card number ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Security code (three- or four- digit number on back of card) _______________

Card expiration date: ______ /______

Signature (required for credit card charges) ____________________________________________

❏ In-Kind Donation (e.g., gift card, baseball tickets):

Describe gift _________________________________________ Value ______________

All contributions to the Supervisors’ Political Action Committee (SPAC) are voluntary, have no bear-ing on NAPS membership status and are unrelated to NAPS membership dues. There is no obliga-tion to contribute to SPAC and no penalty for choosing not to contribute. Only NAPS members andfamily members living in their households may contribute to SPAC. Contributions to SPAC are limit-ed to $5,000 per individual in a calendar year. Contributions to SPAC are not tax-deductible.

OPM Contributions to SPAC(for Retired Postal Supervisors)

Make Contributing to SPAC a Habit:

B elow are step-by-step instruc-tions for making an allot-

ment to SPAC through your OPMretirement allotment, using eitherOPM’s telephone-based accountmanagement system or the on-line “Services Online” portal.

Please note: The amount youkey in will be your monthly allot-ment to SPAC. The start of yourallotment will depend on thetime of the month it was re-quested. If you make your re-quest during the first two weeks

of the month, expect the with-holding to take place the first ofthe following month. If the al-lotment is requested after thefirst two weeks of the month,the change will take place thesecond month after the request.

By internet:

To sign up online, go to the OPM website at www.servicesonline.opm.gov, then:

• Enter your CSA number and PIN, and log in.

• Click on “Allotments to Organizations,” and then select“Start” to begin a new allotment.

• Click on “Choose an Organization.”

• Select “National Association of Postal Supervisors (SPAC).”

• Enter the amount of your monthly contribution and then click “Save.”

By telephone:

• Dial 1-888-767-6738, the toll-freenumber for the Office of PersonnelManagement (OPM)’s Interactive VoiceResponse (IVR) telephone system.

• Have your CSA number and PersonalIdentification Number (PIN) on handwhen you call. You may speak to anOPM customer service representative oryou may use the automated system.

• Simply follow the prompts provided inthe telephone system.


The NAPS Postmaster

By Joe Bodary

o you like to travel? I’d like toshare an affordable way to visitplaces you never may have

dreamed possible. This summer, mywife and I will be traveling to Athens,Greece, from Pittsburgh. Typically, aroundtrip ticket would costabout $1,152 per person.

Using our reward milesfrom American Airlines AAdvantage card, the one-way cost per person is $11.Using our reward milesfrom our United MileagePlus Explorer card, the re-turn trip will cost us $86 per person.For this trip to Greece, we each areusing 30,000 miles on our AmericanAirlines card and 30,000 reward mileson our United card.

Typically, mileage rewards areawarded by credit card companieswhen you sign up and spend $3,000or $4,000 on the card in a three-month period. That may sound likea lot of money, but if you charge allyour usual purchases and pay thebalance monthly, these amounts areeasily achievable.

A ticket to Europe from Pitts-burgh costs 30,000 reward miles oneway or 60,000 roundtrip. Each airlinemay charge relatively minor fees,such as those stated above, in addi-tion to reward miles. If you do nothave sufficient reward miles on onecard for a roundtrip, you can use onecard’s miles for one leg of your jour-ney and another for the return trip.That said, you should read the fineprint for each carefully.

Another word of caution: Flyingwith reward miles usually requires

two stopovers. If you require a directflight, this would not be for you.

You have used your reward milesto reach the destination of yourdreams. Now, where do you stay? Foraffordable, comfortable and conven-ient accommodations, try Airbnb orsimilar sites, such as Tripping.com,

HomeToGo.com, FlipKey,HomeAway, VacationRentalByOwner (akaVRBO), HouseTrip,VayStays, VacayHero, Lux-uryRetreats or Wimdu.Our personal experience islimited to Airbnb. UsingAirbnb, we have found the

cost of accommodations generallyhave been one-third the cost of ahotel room.

Be aware that, in Europe, the firstfloor is what we consider the secondfloor. The first floor in Europe is re-ferred to as zero. Be sure to ask onwhich level the accommodations arelocated and how many steps thereare to reach it. Also, check to see if

there is a working elevator. One ofthe benefits of using a site such asAirbnb is that the hosts usually arevery helpful.

You can contact them prior toleaving on your trip for advice onwhat to see, how to reach your ac-commodations from the airport andmore. Many places have a functionalkitchen and washing machine. Beaware that a dryer in Europe usuallyrefers to a rack on which to dry yourclothes.

When using any of these sites, besure to check all reviews of the prop-erties and the ratings of the hosts.After your stay, you can write a re-view of the property and the host.Be advised they also will rate youbased on the condition in whichyou leave the property.

Enjoy your [email protected]

Joseph K. Bodary is president of Michi-gan State Branch 925 and postmasterof Lincoln Park.

Tips on International Traveling

D

numerous diversion that face fieldEAS employees attempting toprocess and deliver America’s mail.

NAPS requests the USPS createsForm 50 FTE EAS positions for RFIcoordinators in each district. NAPSproposes these positions be createdone EAS employee per 3,000 districtemployees for proper complianceand district coverage.

The Postal Service does not agreewith the need to establish full-time RFIcoordinators in each district. Ad-hoc as-

signments for RFI coordinators (gate-keepers) have been put in place to assistsome districts that were cited for viola-tions by the NLRB for untimely respons-es or the complete failure to respond toRFIs. These employees will assist in co-ordinating and monitoring supervisorresponses. In addition, in-person andWebEx training for all supervisors andmanagers in these locations are beingconducted.

It is important to note that primarycauses for the violations were supervi-sors’ failures to respond to RFIs for upto 60 days or completely ignoring them.

May 14 ConsultativeContinued from page 18


o one wakes up one morning thinking,

“I want to be part of the opioid epi-

demic.” Yet there are thousands of sus-

ceptible people who find themselves or

someone they love part of this epidemic. Unbe-

knownst to them and others. they are on the road to

becoming dependent on one of the most addictive,

highly prescribed substances known to man.

How does one unwittingly become a part of this

group? It can begin as simply as scheduling a routine

surgery, breaking a limb, spraining the back or having

painful headaches, among others. People with one of

these ailments may need the help of a prescribed opi-

oid (OxyContin, morphine, codeine, fentanyl, oxy-

codone) to address the extreme pain associated with it.

These opioids are an appropriate and needed

treatment to address pain. How, then, can their use

turn into an addiction? Let’s take a look at one possi-

ble scenario that could happen to a person receiving

a regular prescription for an opioid to help relieve the

pain of a broken leg.

Charlie has been playing intramural soccer with

his team for the past three years. He has had some in-

juries in the past from his rough play: a sprained

ankle last year and a broken rib the year before. Each

time he saw his doctor, he was prescribed 30 hy-

drocodone pills to help with the possible pain that

could result.

Charlie got the prescriptions filled, but used just

six pills out of each bottle before he could tolerate

Submitted by the USPS Employee Assistance Program

NN


the pain with only acetaminophen.He left the bottles in the back of hismedicine cabinet, forgetting theywere there.

This year, Charlie’s broken legwas a serious break that needed sur-gery. The doctor explained that heneeded to take his prescribed painkillers (30 oxycodone pills, with onerefill) to help him heal appropriately.The prescription stated he could takeone to two pills every four to sixhours for pain relief.

On the first day after surgery,Charlie felt no pain. On the secondday, he took the medicine as pre-scribed, taking two pills every fourhours, even in the middle of thenight, because the pain would wakehim. His pain was real and he wasfollowing the prescription parame-ters. His wife supported his decisionto take extra pills for a short time be-cause she hated to see him in suchagony.

The refill was made on thefourth day post-surgery becauseCharlie was afraid he might run outof the medication. He started to ra-tionalize his need for the extra pillsper day because, after all, he had justbroken his leg and was in deep pain.

At this point, Charlie did notknow he was becoming dependenton the medication; many do not.Each person’s pain threshold is dif-ferent and each person’s susceptibili-ty to addiction is different. As well,each person’s response to how themedicine makes them feel physical-ly, emotionally and psychologicallyis different.

His follow-up appointment withhis doctor a week later was routine.The doctor asked how he was doing.Charlie stated truthfully that thepain was continuing to persist andasked for another prescription foroxycodone. Without hesitating, thedoctor wrote a prescription for 30more Oxycodone pills and asked

that he follow up with his primarycare physician to have the sutures re-moved in another week.

Before Charlie completely ranout of pills, fear of the pain madehim feel panicked. He knew heneeded to try and cut back, to makethe remaining few pills last until hecould plead with his doctor formore. Before the week was up, hehad taken all the pills in the pre-scription. The pain from the brokenleg and surgery was there, but a newemotional/psychological agitationstarted to arise.

Charlie was short-tempered withhis wife when she asked how he wasfeeling. He did not want to do any-thing but lay around and watch TV.He was skipping showers and notshaving.

He had prescheduled a week offfrom work. The second week into hissurgery recovery, he asked for moretime off due to lingering pain. Hewas complaining to his wife howbad he felt—physically and mental-ly—as a result of cutting back on themedication.

His wife wanted to help alleviatehis pain and remembered there maybe more meds tucked in the back ofthe medicine cabinet. Charlie couldhave kissed her; he didn’t rememberthe leftover pills from his previousinjuries. She saw the instant changein his mood. How could a pill makeyou feel like that?

He painfully hobbled over to thebathroom and dug through the cabi-net and found the leftover pills. Hepopped the lid and dry-swallowedtwo out of his shaking hand. He in-stantly knew he would feel better.But, deep down, he also knew thisbehavior was not normal.

Fast forward several weeks. Char-lie is spending much of his time try-ing to find ways to get more opioids.He went to the home of his mother,who had survived cancer, to find her

leftover opioid prescription pill bot-tles. He developed “splitting, painfulheadaches,” started seeing a special-ist for them and was prescribed moreopioids.

Charlie remembered a conversa-tion with a friend who said he couldnot tolerate the hydrocodone pre-scription he was given. Charlie invit-ed himself over, only to rummagethrough his friend’s medicine cabinetuntil he found what he was lookingfor. His need and rationalizations formore pills continued to grow.

He kept missing deadlines atwork. His wife grew increasinglymore concerned. Trying to cut backonly created more pain and suffer-ing—emotionally and physically. Hebecame so distraught and sick andtired of himself, he started to thinkabout overdosing just to get awayfrom his internal and external mis-ery. He asked himself, “How couldthis happen to me?”

There are several reasons whythis could happen to anyone. Thestart of Charlie’s eventual problemwas with the initial prescribing ofopiates. If a thorough physical andmental history had been taken bythe surgical team, it may haveshown that Charlie has a fairly highpain tolerance. He had used only sixout of 30 pills on two different prioroccasions for fairly painful traumasto his body.

The doctor could have explainedhow to increase the pain meds, start-ing with a lower amount with addi-tional Ibuprofen to control the pain.Instead, he was given the choice totake up to 12 pills per day from thestart. When he had a follow-up ap-pointment, the doctor could have:

• discussed how quickly he wentthrough the first two prescriptionsinstead of instantly writing another,

• made a referral to a pain clinic,• asked his wife to monitor the

amount given,


• checked to see if tolerance-ef-fect was taking place,

• spoken with his primary carephysician sharing his concerns,

• joined his state’s prescriptiondrug monitoring program (PDMP) or

• given Charlie information onhow opioid addiction starts andwhat to be aware of regarding signsand symptoms.

It is not all the doctor’s responsi-bility to monitor the use of opiates.The public needs to be educated, aswell. The opioid epidemic currentlyis receiving a lot of attention; an ed-ucated population is an informedone. With information, people canmake wiser decisions for themselves.

Charlie may have not paid muchattention to all the easily accessibleinformation because “it couldn’thappen to him.” Why care morethan necessary? Once he thought hisbehavior was not normal, he couldhave searched on the internet withthe phrases “warning signs of opioidabuse” and “how to tell if someoneis addicted to opiates.” Charlie’s wifealso could have researched similartopics when her concerns arose,using the phrases “how do I know ifsomeone is addicted to opiates” and“addiction to pain pills.”

One great source of information

is the Substance Abuse MentalHealth Services Administration(SAMHSA). Doing research on a pos-sible problem early is one way toavoid serious problems later. Catch-ing the opioid abuse early can leadto much better outcomes than wait-ing for dependence to settle in.

To review Charlie’s case scenario,there were several warning signs hemay have been developing an addic-tion to his prescribed opiates:

1. He started taking the most hecould take at first, as prescribed. Thistook away his pain, but also mayhave given him some euphoria andlack of concern for the pain.

2. If he took an extra pill, he felteven better. This led to higher toler-ance for the medication, whichmeant he had to take more to getthe same effect.

3. He began to fear running outof the medication well before he wasout.

4. He started to rationalize hisneed for pain relief, yet had not triedto back off the medicine to see howmuch pain he would experience.

5. He went to his first follow-upappointment knowing he wouldplead his case for pain relief.

6. He became panicky at thethought of running out.

7. He stopped taking care of reg-ular hygiene.

8. He had little to no motivation.9. He was short-tempered much

of the time, especially with his wifewho was concerned.

10. His work product suffered.11. He took extra pills left over

from previous injuries.12. He searched for a supply, tak-

ing other people’s meds.13. He doctor-shopped with a

new diagnosis of head pain.15. He tried to cut back and

found it to be too emotionally andphysically painful.

16. He became distraught andstarted thinking of overdose.

When concerns arise, take ac-tion. Whether it’s for yourself oryou’re concerned about a relative,friend or co-worker, ask for help. Noone can beat addiction by them-selves. Catch it early and you maysave a lot of pain and trouble fromhappening if you go down the roadto dependence. The sayings, “Seesomething, say something” and“Now, rather than later,” work.

There is plenty of help available.Call your USPS EAP for more infor-mation or help if any of this soundsfamiliar. Visit EAP4YOU.com or call800-327-4968.

aggressive in its pursuit of meaning-ful, thoughtful and constructivepostal reform legislation.

Also in late June, the Housepassed an appropriations bill thatwould provide $56.7 million to thePostal Service. Although the bill doesnot provide these taxpayer funds forpostal operations, the legislation re-imburses the agency for conveyingmail for overseas ballots and mail forthe blind.

In addition, the bill prohibits thePostal Service from reducing mailfrequency and using appropriatedfunds to close small, rural post of-fices. Interestingly, the appropria-tions committee, in its official expla-nation of the bill, encouraged thePostal Service to generate additionalrevenue through “non-postal” prod-ucts, including installing surcharge-generating ATMs in post offices.

Finally, pending on the Senatecalendar are three new presidentialnominations to the Postal Board of

Governors approved by the SenateHomeland Security and Governmen-tal Affairs Committee. The nomineesinclude Ramon Martinez IV, RonBloom and John Barger. They all hailfrom the financial services sector ofthe U.S. economy. If they are con-firmed, the Board of Governors final-ly will have a quorum.

It is important to note that forall the foregoing matters, NAPS willbe “making things happen!”

[email protected]

Legislative UpdateContinued from page 34


By Jane FinleySoutheast Area Vice President

everal Super Bowls ago, the guysat my house were in disbelief at a

bone-headed decision made by one ofthe team’s coaches. In thefinal seconds of the game,he made a bad decisionand called a play that costhis team the game. Gameannouncers, sports com-mentators and armchairquarterbacks all lamented,“What was he thinking?”

I don’t know about you, but I’vebeen there. I’ve zigged when I shouldhave zagged and then thought,“What was I thinking?” Fortunately,I was able—with a good bit of extraeffort—to correct my mistake. And Iwas not in front of a camera with azillion viewers from all over theworld watching.

We are afforded free will, whichmeans sometimes we will make a badchoice or poor decision. There is noway to rewind the film and erase aboneheaded decision, but sometimeswe get a second chance. It’s a chanceto get it right; how grateful we arefor that opportunity.

In business, as in our personallife, there are times when circum-stances prevent us from being afford-ed the opportunity to make the bestdecision. That is to push back forwhat we know we want, need anddeserve. We have no choice but tomake the best choice in those cir-cumstances and in the situation as itis presented. Our best decision is toknow “when to hold ’em and whento fold ’em.”

I relate that to being part of the

NAPS family. For example, the workthe NAPS disciplinary defense teamdoes in its willingness to assist otherswhen a fellow member is facing pro-posed discipline is exemplary—tostand in the gap and help members

through the rough spotsand provide the opportu-nity for a second chance.

In the heat of the de-bate or defense, the teamis there to keep their headswhen you lose yours. Thatalone is worth the cost ofNAPS membership. Every

supervisor, manager and postmasterneeds to know who to call in timesof need; each NAPS member is de-serving of that peace of mind.

So, what does that have to dowith the NAPS Auxiliary? As a familymember of a NAPS member, we liketo be recognized as a part of theNAPS family, too. The Auxiliary’ssupport of SPAC is a family endeavor.When we help NAPS, we are provid-ing support in response for their ded-ication and the many ways NAPS as-sists our personal family throughNAPS membership.

The National Auxiliary is welcom-ing new members. We want to en-courage families of NAPS members tojoin. It’s a positive way for us to part-ner with NAPS; together, we can in-crease our impact and contributions.Auxiliary President Patricia Jackson-Kelley ([email protected]) and Secre-tary-Treasurer Bonita Atkins([email protected]) can providemore information and an application.

Don’t make a boneheaded deci-sion: Join the NAPS Auxiliary andjoin the NAPS family!

[email protected]

from the National Auxiliary

S

Notes

Can You Get a Second Chance?

National AuxiliaryExecutive BoardNational Officers

Patricia Jackson-KelleyPresident(323) 752-6252; [email protected]

Laurie D. ButtsExecutive Vice President(484) 988-0933; [email protected]

Bonita R. Atkins Secretary/Treasurer(225) 933-9190; [email protected]

Regional Vice Presidents

Rick HallEastern Region (804) 621-3843; [email protected]

Elly SoukeyCentral Region(612) 715-3559; [email protected]

Beverly AustinSouthern Region(832) 326-1330; [email protected]

May NazarenoWestern Region(415) 312-5813; [email protected]

Area Vice Presidents

Elsie Vazquez New York Area(718) 727-8652; [email protected]

Cathy Towns Mideast Area(732) 247-8811

Skip CorleyCapitol-Atlantic Area(336) 908-1859; [email protected]

Linda RendlemanIllini Area(618) 893-4349; [email protected]

Mary CarusoMINK Area(402) 891-1310; [email protected]

Jane FinleySoutheast Area (404) 403-3969; [email protected]

Willie CarterCentral Gulf Area(205) 919-5645; [email protected]

Felecia HillTexas Area(281) 880-9856; [email protected]

Rebecca TurnerPacific Area(323) 997-5651; [email protected]

Region vacant: NortheastAreas vacant: New England, Pioneer, Michi-ana, North Central, Cotton Belt, Northwest,Rocky Mountain.