Site Map Icon
RSS Feed icon
March 29, 2020
Solidarity Newspaper Deadline Dates

January 15 - Jan/Feb Issue

February 20 - March Issue

March 20 - April issue

April 20 - May Issue

May 20 - June Issue

June 20 - July Issue

August 10 - Aug/Sept Issue

September 20 - Oct issue

October 20 - November Issue

November 20 - Dec Issue

Information is the Currency of Democracy








About The APWU

UnionActive Newswire
Join the Newswire!
Updated: Mar. 29 (07:04)

Face Book Live - COVID 19 #2
ATU Local 1056
COVID-19 Letter 3-28-20
IATSE Local 96
Social Media
Iowa Postal Workers Union
Retail Stand Up Social Distance
Iowa Postal Workers Union
Iowa Postal Workers Convention Postponed
Iowa Postal Workers Union
Bothers and Sisters especially in Construction
IUEC Local 18
Midwest Labor Press Association

Moe Biller





Union Veterans Council


Iowa Federation of Labor

Web Page

Blog Page


APWU Officers Oath of Office

I, having been duly elected to the office in the ____ of the APWU, AFL-CIO do solemnly pledge to uphold the Constitution and Bylaws of the APWU AFL-CIO, and the (state'Local). I further pledge to perform the duties of my office to the best of my ability. I promise that at the conclusion of my term in office, I will turn over to my successor all books, papers, records and documents that are the property of the APWU. Last, but not least, I promise to purchase only union made aticles whenever available. Failure to perform any of the above will mark me as an indivisual devoid of honor and destitute of integrety.


Your Job and the future of the USPS and the Labor Movement depend on you contributions!

Give to the APWU Committee on Political Action.


National Federation Post Office MVE
National Association Post Office & General Services Maintenance Employees
National Postal Union
National Association Special Delivery Messengers
United Federation of Postal Clerks
APWU Shield
Action Center

Mailhandlers on Presidents Budget
Posted On: Feb 14, 2012

NPMHU Offers Additional Comments Opposing USPS Proposed Rule on Service Standards

February 13, 2012

Manager, Industry Engagement and Outreach

United States Postal Service

475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 4107

Washington, DC 20260-4107

Re: Comments of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union on the Postal Service’s Proposed Rule, Service Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products

The National Postal Mail Handlers Union (“NPMHU”), which serves as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for almost 47,000 mail handlers employed by the U.S. Postal Service (“Postal Service,” “Service,” or “USPS”), hereby submits these comments in opposition to the Postal Service’s December 15, 2011 Proposed Rule regarding “Service Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products” (“Proposed Rule”). See 76 Fed. Reg. 77,942 (Dec. 15, 2011). The NPMHU submitted comments in opposition to the Postal Service’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and incorporates by reference those comments here, in addition to the comments offered below.


The Postal Service’s Proposed Rule seeks to “eliminate the overnight service standard for First-Class Mail, narrow the product’s two day delivery range, and enlarge its three-day delivery range.” See 76 Fed. Reg. at 77,942. The Postal Service candidly acknowledges that the proposal would “reduce the value of the mail to customers,” id. at 77,943, and that the “majority of commenters [to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] expressed opposition to the proposal.” Id. The Postal Service has stated that the proposal, which would add a day to the delivery of most mail, is necessary in order to “align the mail processing network” with declining volumes in order to cut costs—by which it means that it intends to close as many as two hundred and fifty-two mail processing facilities, which process approximately 35% of the nation’s mail volume.[1]

The current processing and distribution network has taken many decades to build, yet the Service is proposing to dismantle that network in large part over the span of one year. Such a far-reaching and irrevocable change demands careful study and transparent discussion with stakeholders before implementation. The Postal Service has filed a request for an advisory opinion with the Postal Regulatory Commission (“Commission” or “PRC”), in order to comply with the federal statute requiring it to seek such an opinion “within a reasonable time before the effective date” of a proposal that will generally affect service nationwide. 39 U.S.C. § 3661(b). Yet the Postal Service appears determined to implement its proposal before the Commission will have an opportunity to issue a decision in this matter, as the Service has stated that it intends to implement the reduced service standards after the comment period for this Notice of Rulemaking has expired, although the Commission’s proceedings, in all likelihood, will not conclude until July. This approach runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the statute, as it fails to give a “reasonable time” for the Commission’s procedures to run their course.

The Postal Service’s rush to implement this far-reaching proposal is particularly troubling, given that the Postal Service still has not concluded its own studies into whether any of the two hundred and fifty-two potential closures are feasible. The Postal Service has indicated that some portion of these studies will be available in the middle or end of February, but has not committed to a date when all studies will be made available for review. And the Postal Service has repeatedly responded to requests for more information about its proposal by stating that it will not know the answer until the more than two hundred individual feasibility studies are completed. For instance, the Postal Service has stated that “the [future] transportation network has not yet been modeled” and cannot be, until the studies are completed.[2] As a result, the Service cannot calculate the percentage reduction in operating routes; cannot state where there will be any increases in transportation costs; cannot state whether, or where, it will need to establish intermediate locations or hubs for transferring mail; cannot estimate the utilization of trucks in the future network; cannot estimate the impact on delivery time for Priority Mail, Express Mail, Standard Mail, and Parcels; cannot determine how many processing machines could be eliminated or how many will need to be moved and where; and cannot state where the bulk mail entry units will be located. [3] Nor can the Postal Service say what the implementation costs for this network redesign will be, or what the net savings will be “without knowing the outcome of each facility-specific AMP determination that will be made.”[4]

Changing the service standards before the Postal Service has this critical information puts the cart before the horse, and raises the possibility that the service standards will be downgraded and the distribution network permanently dismantled even though the redesigned network will be unable to accommodate workload as the Postal Service hopes and/or the savings realized will be insufficient to justify this significant degradation in service.

More fundamentally, until the Postal Service is able to provide substantive responses to these questions, it is impossible for postal stakeholders to evaluate and provide meaningful commentary into the proposal. Likewise, the Postal Service’s rush to implement these service standard changes fails to allow time for the Commission to evaluate the Service’s proposal and provide the informed opinion that the Service is required by statute to seek. Once the Commission has issued its opinion, the Service will be able to study and weigh carefully the advice provided by the Commission. At that time, and with the benefit of the Commission’s advice, the Postal Service then can determine the appropriate course of action. To do so without a reasonable time for exploration of the Postal Service’s proposal, and without the benefit of the Commission’s considered advice, fails to accord due process to postal stakeholders and imparts an air of bad faith to the proceedings.

As such, the NPMHU files these comments to urge the Postal Service to defer implementation of the Proposed Rule until the Postal Regulatory Commission has had time to offer its opinion, as required by statute.

Respectfully submitted,

John F. Hegarty, National President


[1] Postal Regulatory Commission Dckt. No. N2012-1, USPS Library Reference N2012-1/6; USPS Response to NPMHU/USPS-T1-6.]

[2] Postal Regulatory Commission Dckt. No. N2012-1, Response to NPMHU/USPS-T-6-5, 14.

[3] Postal Regulatory Commission Dckt. No. N2012-1, Response to PO/USPS-T6-1; Response to PR/USPS-T6-6(b), 11(a) and 12(b); Response to NPMHU/USPS-T6-8; Response to APWU/USPS-T-4-3 through 6; Response to TI/USPS-T4-1; Response to APWU/USPS-T5-2(b); Response to DBP/USPS-32.

[4] Postal Regulatory Commission Dckt. No. N2012-1, Response to NPMHU/USPS-T1-5; Response to APWU/USPS-T1-2. 

Member Login


Not registered yet?
Click Here to sign-up

Forgot Your Login?
<< March 2020 >>
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Site Search
Site Map
RSS Feeds
Important Links
APWU Auxilary
APWU Health Plan
APWU Postal Press
Des Moines BMC
Arkansas State APWU
Missouri State APWU
Illinois State APWU
Voluntary Benefits
National Presidents Conference APWU
USPS LIteblue
USPS Postal Inspectors
Mail Contractors of America
Iowa Federation of Labor
South Central Iowa Fed.
Change to Win
Mailhandlers Iowa
Mailhandlers National
Letter Carriers National
NALC Letter Carriers Iowa
Iowa Rural Letter Carriers
Rural Letter Carriers National
Canadian Union Postal Workers
Thrift Savings
Postal Employee Relief Fund
United Way Des Moines
Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carriers Safety Assoc
First Gov
Government Benefits
Who Runs the Government
White House
Library of Congress legislative
Tracking Congress
ALEC Exposed -
House of Reps
U S Senate
Real Clear Politics
U.S. Library of Congress
Veteran Administration
Vet Center
Bureau of Labor Statics
Des Moines Vet Center
Iowa Legislature
Working America
Working Families
World Trade Union
Communities and Postal Workers United
Union Directory
Union Democracy
Global Unions
Jobs with Justice
National Education Association
UE Rank n file
Big Labor and Ammo for Unionists
Asian Pacific Alliance
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Pride at Work
A Philip Randolph Institute
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists
National Intrefaith Committee for Workers Justice
Union Review
Pro Unions
Union Facts (anti union)
Union Facts (anti union)
UNI Global Unions
Alliance for Retired Americans
National Association of Postmasters of the US
Iowa National League of Postmasters
National League of Postmasters
National Association of Postal Supervisors
National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees
First Class Credit Union
First Federal Credit Union
Quad Cities Credit Union
Reference Desk
International Labor Communications Assoc.
Internet Library
Labour Start
21 Century Postal Worker
Association for Postal Commerce
Federal Daily
Federal News Radio
Federal Times
Federal Weekly
Labor Notes
Postal Employee Network (PEN)
Postal Magazine
Postal News
Postal Reporter
Rural Info
Federal Soup
Postal Union Directory
Workday Minnesota
Jim Hightower
University of Iowa Labor Center
University Of Missouri Labor Education Center
University of Nebraska Labor Studies
University of Minnesota Labor Education Service
Labor Heritage Foundation
National Labor College
National Labor Committee
National Postal Museum
Labor Net
American Friends
Iowa labor Project
Illinois Labor History Society
Iowa Policy Project
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Iowa Citizens Action Network
Center for Responsive Politics
Citizens for Tax Justice
Economic Policy Institute
United for a fair Economy
Open Secrets
National Priorities
Union Sportsmens Alliance
Roberts Rules of Order
BlueGreen Alliance

IOWA 211 United Way

Get Connected

Get Answers

Mother Jones 1924

Courtesy of Library of Congress. Modifications © Jone Lewis 2001.

Pray for the dead,

and fight like hell

for the living


WH 380E - Employee serious health condition

WH 380F - Family member health condition

WH 381 - Notice of Eligibility, Rights and Responsibilities

WH 382 - Designation Notice

WH 384 - Certification of qualification - military leave

WH 385 - Certification for serious illness or injury - military leave 


Form 1 - Certification by Employee's Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Illness.

 Form 2 - Health Care Provider Certification of Employee's Family Member Serious Illness.

Form 3 - Certificate by Employee of Qualifying Exigency for Military Family Leave.

Form 4 - Certification by Service member's Health Care Provider for Caregiver Military Family Leave.



Employee Assistance Program

Make the Call

Buy Union - Buy American - Buy Iowa

Voluntary Benefits Plan
P.O. Box 1471
Waterbury, CT 06721




APWU Health Plan
Iowa Postal Workers Union
Copyright © 2020, All Rights Reserved.
Powered By UnionActive™

1758713 hits since May 29, 2008

Top of Page image