
Bill To Stop Cds
May 26 2007 18:24:56 PM PDT
Misc. General Discussion - Bill Introduced- Outlaw Contracting Out notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussionSubscribe
From: MurphysLaw21 May-25 12:59 pm To: ALL (1 of 1) 6739.1 http://
www.postalreporter.com/news/2007/05/25/ harkin-introduces-senate-bill-to-outlaw-%e2%80%98c ontracting-out%e2%80%99-mail-delivery/ PostalReporter.com Blog Harkin Introduces Senate Bill To Outlaw ‘Contracting Out’ Mail DeliveryYoung Praises Move to Protect Letter Carriers
(NALC Bulletin) Sen.Tom Harkin (D-IA) on May 23 introduced in the U. S. Senate legislation to protect city and rural letter carriers from having their work contracted out by the U.S. Postal Service to private firms and individuals.
The bill, S. 1457, is titled the “Mail Delivery Protection Act of 2007” and would forbid the Postal Service from entering into any contract “with any motor carrier or other person for the delivery of mail on any route with 1 or more families per mile.”
The only exceptions allowed are contracts in effect atthe date of enactment of the bill which could continue untilterminated under the terms of such contract, or could be renewed, and also service on a rural route may be converted to contract delivery service when such route no longer serves a minimum of 1 family per mile.
NALC President William H. Young said the Harkin bill would bring a halt to the Postal Service’s drive to privatize mail delivery.
“Every active and retired letter carrier in the nation, and their families, should thank Senator Harkin for taking this courageous stand against those forces that would destroy the U.S. Postal Service,” Young said.
“At the same time, it is now critical that the other members of the Senate hear one loud voice from our members—by letter, phone, email, personal offi ce visit —to bring about a groundswell of support for S. 1457 that will ensure its swift consideration in the Senate and eventual enactment by the 110th Congress,” Young said.
Joining Harkin as early co-sponsors of the bill were: Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Robert Casey (D-PA), John Kerry (D-MA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Patty Murray (D-WA).
In introducing the legislation, Harkin said outsourcing mail carriers jeopardizes the reliable and secure delivery of mail because independent contracting fi rms do not use the same extensive recruiting and screening processes the USPS does in hiring and training mail carriers.
“Outsourcing mail delivery to people who have not undergone the Postal Service’s extensive screening and training process leaves open the possibility that convicted felons, identity thieves, or other undesirable workers could have access to the sensitive materials that pass through the mail on a daily basis,” Harkin said.
The Iowa senator said that last year, when the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act became law, the House of Representatives explicitly and overwhelmingly rejected contracting out mail delivery. He said despite that clear Congressional guidance, the USPS has nonetheless begun an aggressive program of placing the responsibility for residential mail delivery in the hands of the lowest bidder in states across the country.
“We cannot allow the Postal Service’s management to jeopardize the safe and reliable delivery of mail to our homes.” said Harkin. “This bill will ensure that the quality mail service Americans depend on continues.”
163 Back H.Res. 282 In the House of Representatives, 163 Members of Congress have already joined Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ) as co-sponsors of H. Res. 282, which would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Postal Service “should discontinue the practice of contracting out mail delivery.
source: NALC Bulletin- May 24, 2007(pdf)
Top Of Page
Billtostopcds
May 26 2007 18:22:32 PM PDT
Misc. General Discussion - Bill Introduced- Outlaw Contracting Out notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussionSubscribe
From: MurphysLaw21 May-25 12:59 pm To: ALL (1 of 1) 6739.1 http://
www.postalreporter.com/news/2007/05/25/ harkin-introduces-senate-bill-to-outlaw-%e2%80%98c ontracting-out%e2%80%99-mail-delivery/ PostalReporter.com Blog Harkin Introduces Senate Bill To Outlaw ‘Contracting Out’ Mail DeliveryYoung Praises Move to Protect Letter Carriers
(NALC Bulletin) Sen.Tom Harkin (D-IA) on May 23 introduced in the U. S. Senate legislation to protect city and rural letter carriers from having their work contracted out by the U.S. Postal Service to private firms and individuals.
The bill, S. 1457, is titled the “Mail Delivery Protection Act of 2007” and would forbid the Postal Service from entering into any contract “with any motor carrier or other person for the delivery of mail on any route with 1 or more families per mile.”
The only exceptions allowed are contracts in effect atthe date of enactment of the bill which could continue untilterminated under the terms of such contract, or could be renewed, and also service on a rural route may be converted to contract delivery service when such route no longer serves a minimum of 1 family per mile.
NALC President William H. Young said the Harkin bill would bring a halt to the Postal Service’s drive to privatize mail delivery.
“Every active and retired letter carrier in the nation, and their families, should thank Senator Harkin for taking this courageous stand against those forces that would destroy the U.S. Postal Service,” Young said.
“At the same time, it is now critical that the other members of the Senate hear one loud voice from our members—by letter, phone, email, personal offi ce visit —to bring about a groundswell of support for S. 1457 that will ensure its swift consideration in the Senate and eventual enactment by the 110th Congress,” Young said.
Joining Harkin as early co-sponsors of the bill were: Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Robert Casey (D-PA), John Kerry (D-MA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Patty Murray (D-WA).
In introducing the legislation, Harkin said outsourcing mail carriers jeopardizes the reliable and secure delivery of mail because independent contracting fi rms do not use the same extensive recruiting and screening processes the USPS does in hiring and training mail carriers.
“Outsourcing mail delivery to people who have not undergone the Postal Service’s extensive screening and training process leaves open the possibility that convicted felons, identity thieves, or other undesirable workers could have access to the sensitive materials that pass through the mail on a daily basis,” Harkin said.
The Iowa senator said that last year, when the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act became law, the House of Representatives explicitly and overwhelmingly rejected contracting out mail delivery. He said despite that clear Congressional guidance, the USPS has nonetheless begun an aggressive program of placing the responsibility for residential mail delivery in the hands of the lowest bidder in states across the country.
“We cannot allow the Postal Service’s management to jeopardize the safe and reliable delivery of mail to our homes.” said Harkin. “This bill will ensure that the quality mail service Americans depend on continues.”
163 Back H.Res. 282 In the House of Representatives, 163 Members of Congress have already joined Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ) as co-sponsors of H. Res. 282, which would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Postal Service “should discontinue the practice of contracting out mail delivery.
source: NALC Bulletin- May 24, 2007(pdf)
Top Of Page
N R L C A Rejects Contract
Feb 08 2007 19:28:24 PM PST
Rural Letter Carriers' Union Members Reject Tentative ContractFebruary 7, 2007 -- WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Postal Service has been notified that the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association (NRLCA) membership rejected the tentative contract agreement that the Postal Service and NRLCA leadership reached on December 8, 2006. The parties will now meet to decide how to proceed.
The NRLCA represents approximately 66,000 career employees and 52,000 non-career employees who deliver mail to residences and businesses on rural delivery routes.
An independent federal agency, the U.S. Postal Service is the only delivery service that visits every address in the nation, 146 million homes and businesses, six days a week. It has 37,000 retail locations and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to pay for operating expenses, not tax dollars. The Postal Service has annual revenues of $73 billion and delivers more than 46 percent of the world’s mail volume.
Source: USPS
Top Of Page
President Bush Signs Postal Reform Bill Into Law
Dec 30 2006 22:29:25 PM PST
Recently President Bush signed into law landmark postal reform legislation that was authored by Senator Susan Collins and is the first modernization of the Postal Service in more than 30 years. Senator Collins said that the new law will ensure the continuation of universal postal service at an affordable rate. The bill was coauthored by Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.).Top Of Page
National Day Of Morning Gerald Ford
Dec 30 2006 21:47:43 PM PST
-----Original Message-----
From: Heidi Taylor Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:38 AM To: Charlene Grasso Cc: suzy matthews; Sheryl Scheid; Sherry Powell; Sherri Shields; SHAVONNET; Sarah Hansen; Sandra A Dixon; Sally Love; Ruth Kennedy; R. Greenspon; Pauline Webber; Patricia Ryan-Owen; Pam Vaughan; NATHAN BENJAMIN; Maston, Don; Martha Hoffman; Linda Glendenning; Ken Kostelnik; Jon Madera; Jeanne Anne Landi; Georgia Burton; George Weaver; Gale Bongiovanni; Estes, Mariann D - Petaluma, CA; Don Beatty; Clairiece Boom; Chuck Bowman; Christine Young; Chip Lukas; Cheri Meiron; Cheri Hill Subject: Fw: MOU Day of ObservanceIt's official. January 2nd is an official day of mourning. Heidi
- Original Message
-
From: Rstutts To: Rstutts Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:23 PM Subject: MOU Day of ObservanceHello all: Attached is the MOU and guidelines for a day of mourning (Observance) if January 2nd is declared by the Postal Service. THANK YOU! RONNIE W. STUTTS DIRECTOR OF STEWARD OPERATIONS
703-684-5545
Top Of Page
Nrlca Contract Ratification Meetings Scheduled
Dec 28 2006 20:07:35 PM PST
California ratification meetings to begin in Northern California:
From:Pam Vaughan To all, As you probably are aware we will be conducting ratification meetings in California. The first will be held in the North at the Sacramento Hilton Arden West on January 13th from 10:00 to 2:00. The Financial Secretary will be sending announcements to all members of the CaRLCA of the upcoming ratification meetings. I look forward to seeing all of you in January.
Top Of Page
The Tentative Contract Is Here
Dec 25 2006 11:45:14 AM PST
Looks like we have a contract if ratified by the rank and file membership. It seems to improve the working conditions for the relief carriers.
We as regulars lose a little in health care, and much in the time standard for COA's and markups under the PARS system. We will lose big-time when DPSed flats arrive at all locations.
Then there is blended flats and letters coming next. We will now get only a 15 second time for all UTF bundled, and a 2nd bundle of all markups combined as one, even though we are sorting them into different locations as we leave the office. Many of us senior carriers are not likely to benefit from the vehicles coming in 2009, but the relief craft who make it to regular before then will.
We now have over 40,000 vehicles in the rural craft. If my estimate is correct, we will have 55,000 after the year 2009 when all vehicles are in place at 3,000 vehicles per year.
There is some improvements in requiring management to keep the Union notified of hires, changes and fired's.
How are your offices with a large number of routes handling the matrix? Management function, and I hope management is handling it well...
We will be voting on the New Contract in January so be prepared to travel, (in my case it might be as far as 600 miles or more,) but I'm hoping for a more central location in California.
Oh, something else, it looks like route bidding will go automated. By automated, there might be a 1-800 number to dial to bid on routes. That way you can bid from home during extended hours. I'd like to see it on computer just like ebay does it, um, let's see, you have one hour and 15 minutes until the route is awarded. Ooops, someone waited until the last 15 seconds and decided to trump your bid... Ouch...
Merry Christmas to All
George
Top Of Page
Postalreform
Dec 12 2006 06:00:03 AM PST
Postal service overhaul bill raises prospect of delay in further rate increases Saturday December 09, 2006 By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON (AP) Congress has passed legislation that could delay future increases in the cost of mailing letters by relieving the Postal Service of billions of dollars in employee retirement expenses.
The measure, which cleared the Senate early Saturday before lawmakers adjourned for the year, now goes to President Bush. The bill, in the works since 1995, was feared dead for this session of Congress until the last-minute reprieve.
Unlike other government agencies, the U.S. Postal Service had been required to pay retirement benefits earned by its workers during any time they had spent in military service. That now will be a responsibility of the Treasury, lifting a burden that could amount to billions of dollars from the people who pay postage.
In addition, the measure eliminates a congressional requirement that $3 billion annually go into an escrow account where it would remain until lawmakers decided the money should be used. This requirement was the sole reason stamp prices rose 3 cents this year.
A further increase was expected next spring, but it was not immediately clear whether the bill's passage would affect that plan.
``We are grateful that the funding for USPS retiree military service obligations will be borne by the Treasury. This, combined with release of the escrow funds, will be used for retiree health benefits,'' Postmaster General John E. Potter said.
Michael Critelli, chief executive of Pitney-Bowes Inc. and a leader in the mailing industry, said the legislation will contribute to the long-term financial stability of the post office.
Especially important, he said, is a provision limiting postage rate increases to the rate of inflation or less for 10 years. That will be a major benefit for the magazine industry and other large mailers. Pitney Bowes makes hardware and software used to mail documents and packages.
Critelli also said the bill changes the way rates are revised, giving the post office more flexibility to offer discounts and make changes as long as it stays under the rate of inflation.
Currently, any rate changes require a monthslong process in which an independent board takes testimony and makes recommendations to the Postal Service.
That board, the Postal Rate Commission, will remain in place and be able to require the post office to concentrate on its core business a focus Critelli said will lead to better service at lower rates than would have been the case without the legislation.
Opposition by a union in September appeared to have blocked approval of the bill, but Senate and House leaders came up with an agreement late Friday that won approval of both chambers.
Congress last approved major changes in postal operations in 1970.
The legislation sent to the White House was developed following a report by a special commission established by the president to recommend a more efficient way to operate the agency.
More than 9 million jobs, $900 billion in commerce and 9 percent of the gross domestic product depend upon mail and package delivery.
The Office of Management and Budget initially opposed the shift of retirement costs to Treasury because the shift would increase the federal deficit.
The escrow account requirement was instituted in 2003, when an analysis concluded the post office was overfunding its retirement accounts. Congress voted to let it reduce retirement payments and use the money to pay off debt, after which the funds were to go into escrow until Congress decided that to do with them.
^ =
On the Net:
Information on the bill, H.R. 6407, can be found at http://
thomas.loc.gov/
Top Of Page
How To Get Paid For Counting Parcels
Nov 28 2006 05:48:31 AM PST
My recommendation when management asks us to count parcels is record the time on the 4240, and for relief carriers also on a green card and enter above contractual obligations. Also I would go ahead and indicate to be paid on a 8127 for regular carriers.George
Top Of Page
Contract Talks Status
Nov 23 2006 08:45:53 AM PST
NRLCA extends contract talks through November 30, 2006 On November 21, 2006, the USPS and all four unions, including the NRLCA, agreed to continue contract talks through 12 midnight on November 30, 2006. The 2000 National Agreement, as amended, remains in full force and effect. We have made substantial progress on work rules but there remain several important issues that must be resolved before an overall agreement can be reached. There will be a break in negotiations over the Thanksgiving holiday, and we will provide updates on the website next week as events dictate.
Posted November 21, 2006 at 4:20 p.m.
Top Of Page
Counting Parcels
Nov 23 2006 08:43:35 AM PST
Hi All; I don't know if any of you have had the issue come up about management requiring rural carriers to count their parcels or not yet. It is becoming an issue in Sacramento at this time & I have received numerous calls on this. I didn't think we should have to do this, as the PO-603, does not state that we do under withdrawal; but I emailed Bill Gordon about this issue to double-check. He advised me that we should fight this issue of recording parcels without a time credit being given. So, I wanted to let you all know, in case you get any calls on this. HeidiTop Of Page
New Postal C F O
Oct 07 2006 16:38:43 PM PDT
We now have a new CFO, (Chief of Financial Operations,) who has been tasked with cutting 1 billion dollars per year from the 70 billion dollar postal budget. You know what that means to us all, but if you don't, it means our jobs will be downgraded by means of automation, and our worth as postal employees will be deminished while we will be carrying a heavier load and mandated to 2 pieces of equipment and required to carry dps flats and dps letters to the street.
Top Of Page
Dps Flats On The Horizon
Oct 07 2006 10:31:42 AM PDT
It's time to start building overburdened routes again. Sorry relief carriers, but DPS flats are in the works soon. . .By this time next year chances are we will be ramping up for a new system that eliminates jobs and increases work load for the average rural carrier.
Thinking about becoming a regular carrier soon? Look for offices in rapidly expanding area's of the country.
Top Of Page
2006 Postive Net Results
May 22 2006 16:18:18 PM PDT
After the escrow allocation, the financial position for March shifts to a net gain of $45 million. USPS revenue of $6.59 billion for March was $189 million (3 percent) over plan and $424 million (6.9 percent) more than for March 2005. Expenses were virtually on plan, totaling $6.3 billion.
Year-to-date (Oct. 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006) net income before escrow allocation was $1.57 billion, or $147 million over plan. The YTD net gain after escrow allocation was $74 million.
Total mail volume for March was 18.9 million pieces, up 1.5 percent from the year-ago period. Volumes in all major categories except Express Mail and International Mail surpassed their March 2005 levels. Most of the increase for March 2006 occurred in Standard Mail, which rose 2.3 percent to 9.2 million pieces.
Top Of Page
What We Wanted
Oct 30 2005 02:51:53 AM PST
More thoughts on this proposed contract by magal..... In 2002, both our union and the postal service stood before arbitrators and firmly stated their positions. Our union plead a case of unjust standards and work being required off the clock. The postal service plead a case of "too liberal time standards" both in regard to adding functions which we were asking for time and to increasing any previously negotiated standards. What the arbitrator failed to recognize, we were already required to perform the functions and were only asking for a time standard to compensate us for that work. The postal service presented witness after witness stating we were getting our fair share of the pie. Even, implying we were happy up until this time with standards we had previously negotiated as we had proven by ratifying previous contracts, therefore, we should be happy now...."Ward also pointed out to the panel that the rural carriers had ratified negotiated agreements in recent years by overwhelming margins, agreements that did not include the "catch up." He cited the ratification of a negotiated agreement by 99.23% and then, almost MOCKINGLY, noted that a later ratification of a tentative agreement had squeaked by with only a 99.11% approval rating. The 99.11% reference was the ratification of the 1995-1999 National Agreement with only the state of Arizona voting against ratification. All of this was to show the arbitrator that apparently rural carriers have been happy with their lot." Just as the union has used past practice against management to successfully argue grievances. The postal service was arguing past practice [ratifications and negotiated contracts] against the union to prove the happy state of mind the rural carriers always had and should continue to have. He failed to point out the membership had never had a one member one vote and in fact, the board had ratified the previous agreements not the membership. The proposals that were presented to the arbitration panel are the following: (1) Parcels = 1.5 minutes each, (2) Re-loading (replenishing) time = 5 minutes/day, (3) Unloading time = Actual time, (4) Edit book = 10 minutes/week for up to 10 entries, additional time for more than 10 entries, and (5) Case label maintenance = 10 minutes/week." "Mr. Daigneault directed his attention to the reloading and unloading time proposals where he tried to show there was no need to add these functions to the already "liberal time standards." Though, we got none of our above proposals in the Wells award, the mindset of both parties has changed. Why? What has changed? Why would the postal service who fought us so fiercely in 2002 be backing away from their arguments? Why would they be offering us an extension with new standards and not take anything away [on the surface]? How could this be as a sound business decision on their part? Why has the board majority accepted a lower standard than they fought for in 2002? Can national not look in the future and see the ramifications this will have on other negotiations, arbitrations and time standards? Top Of Page
What We Wanted Part Ii
Oct 30 2005 02:51:26 AM PST
On the surface, many carriers have said the proposed extension appears good. But, will you find the true intent of the postal service on the surface? Have you ever found it there before? Do you think for one minute that the postal service does not have a plan in place to recapture the cost of what they offer us? Do you not think they have a plan in place to recapture the future technology which is being either implemented or is in our immediate future nationwide such as the PARS? The only opportunities the postal service has to recapture cost of any of these advancements associated with rural carriers is during a mail count and during negotiations. And, if, that mail count is disparate, in the postal service favor, they can in fact, recapture cost and beyond on the backs of the working rural carriers. It is not coincidental that the mail counts proposed are set up with the last being only 2 weeks in duration. The union has always requested 4 week mail counts. Just as, at least, one 2 week mail count has always been either mandated by the postal service as a condition of a negotiated contract or by swaying an arbitrator to award it as a part of a contract. Granted, we had that same opportunity to sway the arbitrator but we failed to do so....perhaps because the postal service spoke with a forked tongue. "Ms. Wilson said that the postal service proposals on mail count and time standards would "fix" the problem of the inappropriate bump. She testified that a two-week count is "as accurate and reliable as a four-week count." There has been no change to the time standards, yet the carriers have been the beneficiaries of new equipment and improved work methods, she said. She stated that the current time standards are "too liberal" and that the "outdated standards must be adjusted." This has given rural carriers a windfall." Historically, the only places rural carriers have lost has also been during mail counts and during negotiations. Does our board majority not see this is our opportunity to change that and mandate 4 week counts? This challenge can be and should be the leverage we use during negotiations. If, we ratify this extension, the 2 week count will most likely be mandated by management as a national mail count. If so, every rural route will be counting for 2 weeks with no holiday included. This would occur immediately after the postal rate changes are implemented. Have you forgotten rate hikes of the past, the rush of bulk mailers and even first class mail to be mailed prior to the change? Have you forgotten the lull immediately after a rate hike was implemented? In 2006, the lull will be during the proposed 2 week mail count. How is that for recapturing costs at the expense of the rural carriers? If you believe, the count of 2002 was a rape count, 2006 will be a massacre. Are we actually being expected to vote on something without seeing the details? They offer us 18 minutes per week for unloading and reloading without any definition of exactly what this will and or more specifically will not include. They provide us with vague language in a special edition magazine. And, to add insult to injury, we are being assured by the board that the postal service has promised, they will write the wording to be very specific in what will and will not be included. HELLO??? Can you hear me now?....The postal service promises?....God help us! Will click and ship time standards, which are still under review, be the sacrificial lamb in receiving this 18 min? or will it be the pending step 4's on second trips? or will they go to the 603 and change the definition on parcels picked up weighing over 2 pounds so that the current time standard of 4 min for these parcels will be just out of reach of most carriers much like they changed the definition on what qualified for a picked up certified letter just a couple years back? Or will it simply be clarified in a district memo come count time? Many carriers have also stated this 18 min is something we have never had before, so, we should take it and get more later. I ask is 18 min enough? In 2002, the union fought for 5 min reload time per day and actual time on unload. What has changed? This would be 30 min reload per week to every route plus actual time. I will speculate that unload should at a minimum, equal at least to the same amount of time as reloading. Using this speculation, it would equal another 30 min per week to every route, totaling one base hour. What has changed since 2002 that the board is willing to accept and offer to the membership 18 min for what we were asking for a minimum of 6o min? But more importantly, what has changed that the postal service is now willing to accept a standard they fought so hard? And without 'taking anything from' us? What is the hidden agenda here? Where will they recapture this savings? I would also speculate.... accepting this time standard could have other ramifications we haven't even begun to think of, such as, would the postal service present to our next arbitrator that our load time should also be standardized? Would they offer some insignificant amount of time and call it liberal? Would a future arbitrator find it ridiculous to have a time standard for unloading but not one for loading thus imposing a standard on loading? And would it be a mere 18 min per week? There are far too many individual elements and variances involved to accept a standardized time over actual time for unloading. whether this is a fair standard or not, if accepted, the postal service will try to recapture the costs. Some carriers have stated take the 18 now and get more later....What kind of mentality is this? Is this the kind of advice you would give your child? Do less than you can today, tomorrow you can make up for it? Or would you expect your child to do their best today on the premise there may not be an opportunity tomorrow? When we have attempted to change any of these standards .... "He quoted the arbitrator in that arbitration as having said, "A deal is a deal." This quote and the related testimony was the last of many times that the Postal Service has told the neutral arbitrator, Mr. Wells, that he should not grant the rural carriers something that was negotiated in 1978 and something that the NRLCA has not been successful in achieving in negotiations since that time." Also note, historically, regardless of whether a true reflection of the actual time is reflected or not, it has been rare that any time standard revisited has changed in our favor. I offer you these excerpts from the hearings of the days of the Wells arbitration, although, National states this tentative agreement has nothing to do with the Wells award, I contend it has a great deal to do with it. A yes vote from the membership will solidify our approval of it and all the ramifications associated with it. We are also being told there is strength in numbers. That, now, we negotiate alone. In 2006, we, the smallest postal union, will negotiate at the same time as the other unions and we should get at least as much as they do. Ask yourself, has this happened before? What happened in 2002? Did our award have equal or better standards than the other unions? Were our standards reduced to less than the other unions? It should also warrant mentioning that many carriers are afraid of the arbitrator we may get thus voting accordingly with a yes vote. Simply because we kill this rat now does not mean we automatically go to arbitration, at least not yet. But, you can believe, if, we ratify this extension the postal service will give us NOTHING in 2006 and force us into arbitration when we have no leverage what so ever. And, if, like last time, they force us to arbitration in 2006, there will be no mail count for up to two years, when we will be suffering under the worst mail count in memory. The board is presenting this to the membership as a viable offer. Asking us to take a long long look at it. Asking us to think about it. Asking us to think about how it will affect us individually. And to vote accordingly. Would it not be better advice to have said we need to stand united and kill the rat before it kills us? Top Of Page