The Price Of Being Obstreperous

The following is a perspective by postal commentator Gene Del Polito. The views expressed are solely the author's.

The Postal Service has begun the collective bargaining process with its employee unions. The first will involve the National Postal Mail Handlers Union. Right behind the mail handlers will be the other three unions, including the American Postal Workers Union (APWU).

In an earlier article, I expressed some amazement at some of the APWU's recent behaviors regarding network realignment and postal reform. I marveled over how a union that is trying to secure for its members continued employment within a financially self-sufficient enterprise able to survive in the rough-and-tumble of an increasingly competitive marketplace could be so adept at making bad choices.

Despite what appears to be an effort to hold back the hands of time and the change that comes with it, the likelihood that the APWU will succeed in ensuring its members a no-risk, 100% guaranteed secure future is zilch. Even King Canute recognized his powerlessness to command the waves and tides. Things happen, not always in a manner to our liking, if for no other reason than that's just the nature of things. The lessening of businesses and consumers using First-Class Mail as their primary business transactional and communication medium is just one of the inevitabilities of modern postal life, and the need to make postal services more cost-efficient and tailored to the nation's changing needs is another.

Now, let me make myself perfectly clear. When I talk about the need for greater postal cost-efficiency, I'm not talking about making postal employees economic martyrs. People who put in an honest full-day's work deserve to be paid a liveable and competitive wage. And when they are willing to stretch beyond what anyone should reasonably expect, they deserve a measure of compensation that fully reflects the value of their contribution.

Also, when I talk about the inevitable need for network adjustments to better mirror changing needs, I'm not saying that I endorse whole-heartedly the manner in which the Postal Service has handled the business of network realignment. Industry agrees with labor that some criticism is justified when steps fail to be taken to ensure that all affected parties understand the rationale for such changes and are given adequate advance notice and sufficient justification for the changes. Interpreting this criticism, however, as a sufficient reason to oppose all efforts to eliminate redundancies in the system and better utilize postal resources would be a stretch. There may be something about the management of the Evolutionary Network Design (END) that we don't like, but we don't question the need to do it.

The APWU, on the other hand, behaves as if it sees no social redeeming value whatever in END. Their opposition to facility evaluation and the prospects of employee redeployments is more knee-jerk than well-reasoned. It would seem that the APWU is willing to accept nothing less than status quo. Of course, you'd never know that it's mindful that status quo will come at a cost that ultimately will harm the very constituents it says it represents.

It could be that both the Postal Service and its employees have grown much too accustomed to life with a statutory monopoly. I suppose if you believe that status quo is desirable, it stems from some misconception that mailers' money (the money that supports this nation's postal system) will continue to rain on the Postal Service like manna from heaven.

Oh, if such a supposition were only true. Then PostCom could rest assured that henceforth and forever more business mailers would find a need to pay membership dues, even as the costs of postal advocacy are rising. But that isn't the case. In fact, businesses are moving as quickly as they can to immunize themselves from continuously rising postal rates by exploring alternative ways of communicating and doing business. In addition to First-Class mailers, Standard mailers are looking at an array of electronic communication alternatives in lieu of mail. So, while Standard Mail today may still show some signs of growth, preservation of postal legislative and regulatory status quo will only guarantee the beginning of Standard Mail's decline.

So why should the unions care? Well, the last time I checked, it was mailers' postage dollars that paid for the paychecks and benefits that postal workers receive. When mailers stop providing the Postal Service with that money, it's only reasonable to expect that paychecks and benefits will get harder to maintain.

From my perspective, the APWU's obstreperousness could prove extremely costly not only to its own constituents but also to the those who are members of other postal employee groups. I can't imagine that the postal management's concern with rising costs will not affect the substance of this next round of collective bargaining. Nor can I imagine that any arbitrator (if one is required) will be willing to turn a blind eye to the changes and pressures that are affecting the Postal Service.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. That said, unless the APWU chooses a different view of the world, one day there may be no lunch at all.