April 30, 2003
 
Response of Murray Comarow to the statements of
Anthony J. Vegliante, U.S. Postal Service
William Burrus, American Postal Workers Union
William F. Young, National Association of Letter Carriers
on April 29, 2003
Before the Presidential Commission on the USPS



Perhaps it is time to review a few basic facts with respect to collective
bargaining in the U.S. Postal Service.

Postal workers are federal employees. The Postal Service is not
quasi-government or quasi-private, it is part of the executive branch of the U.S.
government.

Federal employees have never had the right to strike. That prohibition
does not stem from the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.

Except for the USPS, federal employees' wages are set under
congressional guidelines by duly authorized federal officials.

Postal wages, 80 percent of postal costs, are negotiated under threat
of arbitration, or set by individual arbitrators, who have no responsibility for
management.

Most studies reveal that postal workers arc paid at least 30 percent
more than comparable workers in industry: $54,000 a year for letter carriers;
$52,000 for clerks (including retirement and health benefits).

There is no sound public policy which supports the view that only one
federal agency's employees should have their wages set by arbitrators.

The unions have skillfully and effectively defended their unique
advantage. In their place, I would do the same.

The Postal Service, on the other hand, has historically been unwilling to
publicly identify arbitration as a root cause of its labor costs, although many postal
governors and officials are convinced that is the case.

Mr. Vegliante's statement touches on this issue, but does not deal with
it head-on. Doing so would unleash a major stack by the unions and their
supporters in Congress. USPS officials have been reluctant to launch an initiative
which would be "dead on arrival" on the Hill.

A presidential commission, not concerned with long-term good relations with
the Congress. business mailers, unions, or competitors, is positioned to deal with
this fundamental issue. It should consider these options:

1. Abolish binding arbitration; set postal wages tinder congressional
guidelines after mediation.

2. Less desirable, recommend final best offer arbitration; this should force
both parties to take more reasonable positions.

3. If the present system is not to be fundamentally altered, have three
neutral arbitrators on the panel. The law should require them to take the Postal
Service's financial situation fully into account.

This issue is being ducked by mailers and by the Postal Service. It is up to the
Commission.

Murray Comarow, a lawyer, is a director and senior fellow of the National Academy
of Public Administration. Among other positions, he was a Distinguished Adjunct
Professor and Acting Dean of the College of Public and International Affairs at.
American University; executive director of President Johnson's Commission on
Postal Organization in 1967-68; executive director of President Nixon's Advisory
Council on Executive Organization in 1970-71; executive director of the Federal
Power Commission; and Senior Assistant Postmaster General of the United States
Postal Service. The views expressed in this "Response" are his own.