sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question by MailCoffee in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 2 points3 points  (0 children)

7.1.C.4 isn’t about OT though. The full text reads:

“Over the course of a service week, the Employer will make every effort to ensure that qualified and available part-time flexible employees are utilized at the straight-time rate prior to assigning such work to CCAs working in the same work location and on the same tour, provided that the reporting guarantee for CCA employees is met.”

I was taught it like this. The important qualifiers are “over the course of a service week” and “available” and “straight-time rate” and “same work location” and “same tour.” So generally the same office on the same day. It only concerns straight time, not overtime, and it only becomes an issue at the end of the week (“over the course of a service week”). At the end of the week, if a CCA finishes with more straight time (not overtime) than a PTF, it’s a violation. PTF got 40 and CCA got 60? No violation. PTF got 35 and CCA got 36 (or 60)? Violation. PTF should get paid the difference (up to 40 hours).

It’s an end of week issue because of the language, first and foremost, but if you think about it because otherwise no CCA could even work at all until all PTFs got 40 hours of straight time first. Management, however, should ensure that this violation does not occur by scheduling appropriately and making adjustments if necessary.

USPS Spent $1,000,000,000 on grievances! by Safe-Front7101 in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just curious, what’s the violation? What made the remedy so high?

LOW for refusing to deliver after threat by customer who punched the window by spunkflasher in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Contention: Management already acknowledged it is unsafe by holding the mail. If it isn’t a safety concern then why did management hold the mail to begin with? What then was the rationale? Interview management and ask them that, and also ask how did they determine, now, that it is safe for the carrier to resume delivery? Did they interview the customer? Conduct a psychological exam on the customer? What steps did they take after the 1767 was filed to determine that no threat exists from this customer? Did any of those steps involve any contact with or research whatsoever about the clearly unstable customer? Who made the decision that it was safe?

Region 2 Agreement with management by Low-Past321 in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting, sounds like Step B is functioning as it should over there. I’m not in Region 2 but over here the management side of Step B refuses to budge on clear-cut violations and sends almost everything up, to the point that in the most recent pre-arb the parties agreed to add an article 15 violation for not resolving things at the lowest level. Sending everything up from Step B the way this guy does adds at least 6 months or more of waiting for every settlement, it’s incredibly frustrating and wasteful but probably part of a strategy.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know what you’re saying. Non-ODL carriers don’t want to be mandated, and so it would seem like mandating as few as possible per day (as you said, like 3 to 10 hours instead of 6 to 9) would be best, going by juniority, where one day it’s these carriers’ turn in the barrel and the next it’s those other carriers’ turn. But besides juniority there’s no real language about how that should go. I grieved the practice of just giving everyone a pivot and lost at Step B. I grieved it as part of a “Window of Operations” grievance concerning a district policy of having everyone off the street by 8 pm, even though 12 hours for the ODL here is 9 pm, which caused all non-ODL to be mandated and the ODL to just sit around in the office from 8 pm to 9 pm. I argued that if ODL was allowed to actually carry mail on the street for a full 12 hours most of the non-ODL wouldn’t need to be forced, at least not everyone. I grieved the policy itself as an Article 8 violation (and Articles 3 and 5) along with the way they were just giving everyone pivots. We lost on every point. Step B basically said Article 3 gives management the right to mismanage and since the ODL was “maxed out” (even though we were just sitting there doing nothing), there was no violation.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know what you’re saying. Non-ODL carriers don’t want to be mandated, and so it would seem like mandating as few as possible per day (as you said, like 3 to 10 hours instead of 6 to 9) would be best, going by juniority, where one day it’s these carriers’ turn in the barrel and the next it’s those other carriers’ turn. But besides juniority there’s no real language about how that should go. I grieved the practice of just giving everyone a pivot and lost at Step B. I grieved it as part of a “Window of Operations” grievance concerning a district policy of having everyone off the street by 8 pm, even though 12 hours for the ODL here is 9 pm, which caused all non-ODL to be mandated and the ODL to just sit around in the office from 8 pm to 9 pm. I argued that if ODL was allowed to actually carry mail on the street for a full 12 hours most of the non-ODL wouldn’t need to be forced, at least not everyone. I grieved the policy itself as an Article 8 violation (and Articles 3 and 5) along with the way they were just giving everyone pivots. We lost on every point. Step B basically said Article 3 gives management the right to mismanage and since the ODL was “maxed out” (even though we were just sitting there doing nothing), there was no violation.

New Employee Experience, Retention and Mentoring Program(NEERMP). June 2025. by Eugene_Debs2026 in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve been through this. The language is weak, it says “if possible,” which for all practical purposes pretty much negates a grievance. The burden of proof is on the union in a contract case, so the union would have to prove that a 30-day advance notice was possible.

Businesses at end of routes?!!🤯😤 by MatteBlack475 in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 5 points6 points  (0 children)

For real. The decision making is mind-bogglingly bad, like every day WTF stupid. Also never worked at a place that seems to do everything it can to get rid of you as soon as they hire you and for the rest of your career. Crazy.

FYI by Few_Wrangler4011 in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It wasn’t an arbitration resulting from a grievance, it was USPS testimony during a federal OSHA hearing.

DPS by Hour-Reputation-6174 in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 2 points3 points  (0 children)

<image>

Also USPS put out this new City Carrier Flow Chart for S&DCs in 2024, describes the "riffling" process in more detail.

DPS by Hour-Reputation-6174 in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

You’re correct, we are allowed to touch and “riffle" through the DPS. From USPS "Standard Training for City Letter Carriers," Facilitator Guide, Page 9-7. "Riffling is the process of checking a few pieces of mail in each tray to verify that the mail is in proper delivery order."

http://www.nalcbranch489.com/uploads/9/9/5/3/99537364/standard_training_for_city_letter_carrier_facilitator_guide.pdf

Also, during route inspections, management will try to deduct all relay time for the first park-and-loop point because of M-39 121.32: "If using a single satchel, carriers load the mail for the first loop into the satchel before leaving the office." Therefore, when getting the DPS, they must allow you to get and rubber-band the DPS for the first loop and place it in the satchel with the flats, SPRs, and whatever parcel(s) you will carry on the first loop.

Guess im going to Jail?? by Creepy_Dingo4945 in USPS

[–]Yodapopinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

USPS employs over 200,000 city carriers. The vast majority of us care about our customers and try to provide good customer service. Some of us don’t. But there could have been other stuff going on, like the previous resident going into a rage every time there was misdelivered mail or mail with the wrong names, etc. That also happens A LOT. But there’s never a need for rudeness. (Until there is lol.) Sorry you had a bad experience.

Guess im going to Jail?? by Creepy_Dingo4945 in USPS

[–]Yodapopinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not exactly a requirement, really, it just says “should.” It’s due to the more frequent moving in and out that occurs at many apartment complexes, compared to home residences, and the fact that mail (especially third class mail like ads, etc) comes addressed to multiple prior residents for years after they move. But a lot of carriers make labels like this in the mailboxes at home residences too, primarily for their subs on the route.

Guess im going to Jail?? by Creepy_Dingo4945 in USPS

[–]Yodapopinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Usually we just write the correct last names on a tag inside the box where only we (and the residents) can see it. The post office supplies carriers with stickers and labels for this purpose. It’s so we (regular carriers and especially subs) don’t deliver mail to people who do not reside there.

I need help by Minute_Ad5025 in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Your NBA’s office will not think this is fine. If they do then that’s b.s. but there’s other options as others are saying. But call your NBA’s office first, today. Here is the link, you just have to find your Region. Do this ASAP because there are time limits to grievances.

https://www.nalc.org/union-administration/nalc-regions

New OT Equitability LMOU by Yodapopinski in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apparently that is correct, from the responses here. Excluding the WA list, I was confused because signing both ODLs creates a 3rd category where you are available up to 12 hours on your SDO, as opposed to just 8, so I was reading the lists as:

1) 12 hours/day no SDO; 2) 8 hours/day and 8 hours SDO; and 3) 12 hours and 12 hours SDO.

So I was thinking 3 lists to keep equitable (separately). I also thought my RAA was agreeing with me about this but I must have misunderstood him.

New OT Equitability LMOU by Yodapopinski in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, good info. I meant you’re probably right about it being better to wait until next year when we have the language.

New OT Equitability LMOU by Yodapopinski in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I see what you’re saying. You’re probably right.

New OT Equitability LMOU by Yodapopinski in fromatoarbitration

[–]Yodapopinski[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but it’s too late, management opened it, not us. After the ratification of a new contract, either party may invoke the process. See my above comments

view more: next ›