Efforts to Privatize the United States Postal Service: Labor’s Response

Background

Attempts to privatize public services are obviously neither a new strategy nor is it something that limited to the postal service. “Among the services that historically have been most commonly contracted out are solid waste disposal, street construction, vehicle repair and maintenance, architectural and engineering services and legal counsel” (W. Z. Hirsch and Osborne 2000, 316). While there are some similarities in the arguments advanced for privatization including cost savings and operational efficiencies (Baxter 1994, 229-31; Hoover and Peoples 2003; Jalette and Hebdon 2012), the sheer size and diversity of operations distinguish postal operations from those services. It may also be the case that the rate of unionization and the militancy of the workforce may provide some of the rationales for the proposed changes. “The Post Office Department (like its successor) was the most highly unionized federal organization” (Tierney 1981, 83). In 1970, postal workers across the United States staged a successful wildcat strike. Carriers and clerks in many parts of the country remained out of work for approximately two weeks. Average pay in the Postal Department was so low that many workers qualified for welfare and other public transfer funds while others had to work additional jobs in order to be able to support their families (Rubio 2010, 234-37). Then President Nixon attempted to break the strike by bringing in the National Guard to deliver the mail to disastrous effect. Rubio notes that photographs taken at the time reveal that there was a great deal of mail which could not be moved by those without the requisite sorting, processing, and delivery skills so that “tons of mail” went undelivered (Rubio 2010, 254). After the strike, workers won large pay concessions but were forced to concede to changes in working conditions which were not as palatable (Rubio 2010, 266). A “no-layoff” clause made such concessions somewhat easier to accept. The gradual erosion of distinctive job responsibilities between carriers and clerks was a harbinger of things to come (Germano 1975, 68-69). The strike of 1970 alarmed both the business and government administrators. The fact that about one-third of workers participated in the strike (estimates vary, but many argue that the number is approximately 200,000) and that it spread quickly from New York City to other parts of the country was an indication of both the extent of the frustration felt by postal workers and also their ability to organize. The strike was also noteworthy in that it created a sense of fear that other workers might join in and declare a general strike (Brecher 1972, 272). Arthur F. Burns, Chairman of the Federal Reserve for eight years beginning in 1970, is reported to have regarded the postal strike as “nothing less than an insurrection against the Government.” He especially identified public-sector trade unionism and welfare programs (which he saw as a subsidy to strikers) as the reason why “at a time when unemployment was rising prices continued to advance at an undiminished pace and wages rose at an increasing pace” (cited in Panitch and Gindin 2012, 141).

It was, of course, this time period in which rising inflation and escalating wages combined to impact the rate of profit in the private sector. The push back on labor and the beginning of the end of the social contract in the United States (and Europe) allowed for “an open assault by states and capital on core labor movements during this period” (Silver 2003, 163). While employees of the USPS were poorly paid until the 1970s, in the 1980s, it was argued that “the Postal Service pays wages far in excess of those paid in the private sector” and the postal service’s “premium wage” has been growing over time (Perloff and Wachter 1984, 26). In addition, in 2007, public-sector density levels ranged from 61.8 percent in the USPS to 16.0 percent in the federal government workforce, with state and local government segments ranging from 20.4 to 41.8 percent, respectively (B.T. Hirsch and Macpherson 2008, cited in Langevin 2010, 367). The fact that the postal service has successfully maintained a highly unionized labor force in these times explains some of the current efforts to dismantle it. That coupled with the argument that “the private sector [should] fulfill all upstream mail processing, transportation and logistics functions” (Gleiman et al. 2013, 3) is an additional reason for the proposed changes.

Since 1970 when the Postal Office Department became a semiautonomous service and changed its name to the USPS, it has received no subsidies from the federal government and indeed for many years ran a surplus. That structural shift was indeed a harbinger of things to come. It is not a coincidence that this shift came on the heels of a successful wildcat strike of 1970 and has been described as “no longer . . . the people’s homespun Post Office . . . Rather it was to be a business like any other great American business” (Gallagher 2016, 255). By the 1990s, technological changes and the omnipresent pressures for privatization led to

A climate . . . in the Reagan and Bush Administrations that made possible creeping privatization, or a change in the rules to permit firms . . . to operate in competition with the Postal Service, and the courts have ruled in favor of these changes. The USPS also announced its intention to contract out work once performed by postal workers, gave its blessing to franchise operations, and attempted to install retail installations (staffed by and attempted to install postal retail installation staffed by nonpostal workers in stores, malls and supermarkets throughout the country). (Walsh and Mangum 1992, 242)

Despite numerous articles indicating that the USPS has lost revenue because of changes in technology including the use of email and online banking, as late as 2006, it remained a financially sound organization long after the impact of electronic alternatives to snail mail (Nixon 2012).

The fiscal situation is currently problematic because the USPS was forced to pay health care benefits for its current employees and retirees seventy-five years in advance as a result of the passage in 2006 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. According to the summary provided by GovTrack (2006), the bill

Requires the Postal Service, beginning in 2007, to compute the net present value of the future payments required and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year, along with a schedule of annual installments which provides for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by 2056. Directs the Postal Service, for each year, to pay into the above Fund such net present value and the annual installment due under the amortization schedule. Makes OPM actuarial computations subject to PRC review. (Sec. 803)

It is this Act which explains almost all of the financial difficulties which have been attributed to the loss of revenues due to the use of email, changes in technology, and inefficiencies.

In addition, the postal unions contend that there are overpayments to the civil service retirement fund in the amount of approximately seventy-five billion dollars. The report of the inspector general provides compelling evidence that the USPS is due a hefty refund:

Some of the other significant alterations [to previous legislation] are defining the term “postal service”; restricting the USPS’s authority to provide nonpostal services; altering the USPS’s budget submission process; and replacing the USPS’s regulator, the Postal Rate Commission, with the more powerful Postal Regulatory Commission. (Kosar 2012, 2-3)

A lengthy op-ed piece by Bob Sloan on the Voters’ Legislative Transparency Project website describes in great detail the connections between the bill’s sponsor, Tom Davis, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, the think tank which supports, among other reforms, changes to the pension plans of government workers and an end to defined benefit plans (Sloan 2012). The rationale for the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, to ensure that future generations of workers have safe and secure benefits, belies other actions undertaken by the government. It is clear that the Act both enabled the government to characterize the USPS as an inefficient, outdated, and ineffective organization and to drain the service of resources as

It was just another way of setting in motion of number one grabbing some money you know and a half billion a year and the Postal Service on September 30th has to write a check to the treasury and it can only come from its operating funds. There’s no other place to get it. So that at the time 2006 they figured the postal service can handle it because 2006 was the biggest year in volume in the 236 year history of the Postal Service.(Martha Ecker, Interview with DY, December 12, 2012)

Money Saving Initiatives

In an ostensible effort to save money, the postal service has also invested in new equipment to increase efficiency and reduce the need for additional personnel. The flat sequencing system (FSS) is manufactured by Northrop Grumman which in 2007 was awarded a $874.6 million contract to produce 100 Flats Sequencing Systems. The system which, in total, costs more than a billion dollars and was expected to reduce the time it takes postal carriers to sort through magazines, catalogs and larger envelope, the so-called flats. The machines separate each of these into separate bundles thus, theoretically, saving the time it took for letter carriers to perform this task and reducing the overall time.

First class letters have been automatically sorted by address for decades. The large FSS machines are strategically located throughout the United States. In initial tests, the machines were shown to be largely ineffective on a number of parameters (Williams 2009). Recently, President Obama named D. Michael Bennett as a nominee to the Board of Governors of the USPS. Mr. Bennett was Vice President for Contracts, Pricing, Procurement, and Risk Management for Northrop Grumman from 1980 through 1999.

According to a former carrier, currently working with postal management to mediate the ever-growing number of issues and grievances, “it is like everything the postal service has done. It’s just so poorly managed and the implementation is terrible. These machines are about the size of a football field, they’re enormous.” He went on to say that the inspector general has done reports and there has been no appreciable savings (FJ, Interview by Martha Ecker, May 29, 2012).

The use of the FSS was supposed to result in such enormous savings of time for the average postal carrier, that the existing routes were expected to be restructured in another attempt at cost savings. These changes resulted in the loss of favored routes for some carriers who had been delivering mail to the same houses for decades as well as more friction between workers and management especially with regard to overtime payments. Here is one experience:

And then on the carrier end, they thought that they were going to save two hours a day on every route. Two weeks later they adjusted routes based on their projected savings, but the projections were nowhere near realistic so when they made changes to the routes because of it, they find that everybody is working until eight, nine o’clock at night delivering the mail. Then they come in and they had to redo the routes again. (FJ, Interview by Martha Ecker, May 29, 2012)

There are three general categories or “bundles” of mail: letters and cards, flats, and parcels. Flats are irregularly shaped and may be folios, newspapers, magazines, and the like. Letters and cards have been electronically read and since 1982, the postal service has been an innovator in the field of scanning. The scanner effectively eliminated the need for postal clerks to memorize addresses and “box up” or sort the mail. That is one of the reasons that the number of clerks has declined in the past several decades. Between 1990 and 2010, the percentage of clerks declined by over 45.9 percent (Ginsberg 2011, 2). Carriers re-sort the mail in their trucks and on their routes as they prepare to deliver to individual households. One carrier commented, “If we had the flats that would be automated like they said, absolutely they’d be saving time. I’m winding up with maybe two of those trays” (DJ, Interview by Martha Ecker, June 27, 2012).

It is in fact the case that some types of mail have declined as a percentage of the total. First class letters and some types of flats have been eclipsed by electronic formats. The decrease in the number of flats makes the USPS’s investment in these machines even more difficult to apprehend. One of the carriers I interviewed provided context for this observation:

Okay, you have three bundles, okay now we have an agreement of course. You can’t carry more than three bundles because you only have two arms. But it’s just been a colossal disaster. It’s just unbelievable. I talk to my carriers in the towns that have the FSS and they’re getting I mean the flats went down, the volume went down terribly. They built entire down in Florida, you know ’cause the buildings are so huge you know to house them. They built buildings to house these machines, spent billions on the machines and they’re just not getting the return on the money. You know the PIG has done reports, you know of the amount of money that’s been saved and there’s been no appreciable savings on that end. And then on the carrier end, they thought that they were going to save two hours a day on every route so rather than implement it, and this is what you were talking about, having a different mailman. Rather than implement it and see how it goes, they implemented it. (FJ, Interview by Martha Ecker, May 29, 2012)

According to the General Accounting Office, it is unclear as to whether or not the considerable investment in FSS resulted in the hoped-for savings (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2009). I asked whether the investment did not have the desired effect from the perspective of the carriers. Here is the answer:

It did, that is when they made the final cut from nine routes to eight routes; well its eight and a half routes. Yes, I don’t care for it, mostly because it mangles the customer’s mail. You know, I have to deliver these things that look like almost they’ve been through a shredder. (Interview by Martha Ecker, December 12, 2012, MK).

Letter carriers see themselves as contributing more than simply delivering the mail to a community. In spite of all these difficulties, the carriers I spoke to were generally positive about their jobs. This is consistent with the findings of others (e.g., Leonard 2016, 160). “I loved my job delivering the mail. I loved being a mailman. I knew everyone on my route” (FJ, Interview by Martha Ecker, May 29, 2012). And another said, “I still love it” (MKLC, Interview by Martha Ecker, December 12, 2012). Longtime carriers are being removed from their routes and encouraged to retire further eroding the social relations that are at the heart of the relationship between the community and the postal service.

It is taking longer for the mail to be transported from place to place as the postal service closes processing centers in its effort to save money. These “delivery delays” are contributing to the growing sense that the postal service is an anachronistic, poorly functioning institution. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who led a push to delay any further postal consolidations until May 2015, called the new plans “deeply flawed” because closing processing centers would make the mail delivery even slower. “Slowing down mail delivery service will result in less business and less revenue,” Sanders said (O’Keefe 2012b). “As fewer Americans believe they can rely on the post office for prompt service, more are likely to seek out alternatives, whether that’s online or through private carriers like FedEx or UPS” (Sanburn 2011).

The more that postal service customers come to see that the privatization of the mail service will lead to faster, more efficient delivery of letters and packages, the more likely they are to support the changes described above. A report issued in January 2013 and funded in part by Pitney Bowes, which has an interest in taking on some of the services currently provided by the USPS, called for a public-private partnership in which

private companies on their own, or through partners, will sort and transport mail up to the point of handoff to the Postal Service for final delivery. This hybrid partnership will foster greater private sector innovation and competition while driving down the cost of mail. (Gleiman et al. 2013, 6)

The fact that the USPS has consistently been in the forefront of technological innovation and provided packaging, mailing, and shipping at generally low rates compared with those of FedEx and UPS, for example, makes that a dubious claim.

The postal service has proposed the sale and closing of a number of offices. In 2011, the postal service identified about 3,700 post offices—some leased, some owned, some historic, and some not—that it said may have to close in coming years to save money. When that plan met with opposition, the service announced it would instead try to lower expenses by reducing operating hours. But even as postal officials agreed not to eliminate outlets in some towns and cities, they did leave open the option to sell valuable properties and relocate services. “Periodic sales of post offices will be ongoing,” Ms. Brennan said (Pogrebin 2013, A1).

A day of action to save the beautiful general post office building on the Grand Concourse in the borough of the Bronx in New York City was ineffective and despite the best efforts of neighborhood activists, the post office has been closed. The site is being renovated and “[t]here will be a market, retail, and a small post office on the ground and main floors” (New York YIMBY, April 18, 2016).

There was legislation pending in both the House and the Senate which would have addressed these issues and concerns. Although both the House and the Senate would reimburse the postal service for overpayments to the retirement fund, the House bill would effectively dismantle the institution by delivering to centralized “drop boxes” instead of individual homes and by creating an oversight authority with stringent standards for profitability. The Senate Bill (S. 1789, sponsored by Joseph Lieberman) would have reduced the amount that the service is required to pay for retiree health care benefits, but would require the USPS to continue to provide a high level of service to all parts of the country including rural areas.

The Obama administration did little to support the service. About four years ago, the President announced a plan to help the postal service save money by eliminating Saturday delivery, reducing its payment to the retirement fund, and allowing for increasing the cost of stamps and other items (O’Keefe 2012a). Strong opposition from the unions coupled with support from the Office of the Inspector General and Congress have, as previously noted, at least temporarily halted this proposal.

Rep. Sam Graves has co-sponsored a resolution in the House along with Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-VA., that states the Postal Service should do whatever it can to preserve Saturday delivery. Introduced in January, the proposal now has 200 co-sponsors, and its proponent expect to reach 218 soon—a majority in the House. (Medici 2015)

HR 756 titled the “Postal Service Reform Act of 2017” might also alleviate some of the financial burdens discussed, but so far the bill has not moved past committees.

The Significance of the USPS

Yet, the USPS remains an important institution. As the second largest employer in the United States, bested only by WalMart, the postal service has provided a path to the middle class for many workers (see Gallagher 2016; Leonard 2016). As of May 2012, according to the USPS Office of National Diversity Initiatives, it employed 541,976 workers of whom 41 percent were female, 21 percent identified as black or African American, 9 percent as Asian, and 9 percent as Hispanic or Latino. In addition, a substantial percentage of workers are veterans; 22 percent in 2011 (Liberto 2011). Veterans are an important component of the service and much will be lost if the forces at play are allowed to dismantle the postal service and auction it off in pieces. Veterans are informed that “Military Service is treated as a continuation of your government service” (Military Friendly® 2015). This means that when career postal employees enter active service and receive an honorable discharge, those years are counted toward their total service. The complex relationship between world politics, war, and labor unrest (Silver 2003, 173) becomes even more significant when a fifth of the labor force has served in the military. The identification of employees with the government as employer in the USPS and the military is itself fraught with contradictions beyond the scope of this paper. At the same time, the correlation between labor unrest in periods immediately preceding and following wars might explain some of the labor struggles in the post office (Silver 2003, 124-30; Walsh and Mangum 1992, 84-90). As Rubio (2010, 255-57) noted, some of the more militant employees were Vietnam era veterans who invoked both patriotism and militancy with respect to the policies of the government as both deployer and employer.

The Fight Back

Postal workers are not without resources or the ability to organize. The unions have long recognized that it is in their interest to work collaboratively. “The postal unions . . . recognized that they shared common goals in negotiating with management . . . and that some form of unity was necessary to deal with management from strength” (Tierney 1981, 88). Dimondstein, a former aide to Moe Biller, the president of the American Postal Workers Union (henceforth also referred to as APWU), representing clerks, motor vehicle and maintenance workers as well as a smattering of private-sector mail workers, from 1980 until 2001, was a field organizer for ten years. Biller was the former president of the famously militant Manhattan-Bronx Postal Union. At his swearing-in ceremony in November 2013, APWU President Mark Dimondstein pledged to build a “Grand Alliance” to save the postal system, saying,

We must build a grand alliance between the people of this country and postal workers. We must mobilize our allies and their organizations, including seniors, retirees, civil rights organizations, veterans groups, the labor movement, community and faith-based organizations, the Occupy movement, and business groups in defense of America’s right to vibrant public postal services. (Johnson 2015)

The alliance includes a number of labor and community organizations, including other postal unions, the National Association of Letter Carriers, and National Postal Mail Handlers’ Association.

The Grand Alliance sponsored a series of field hearings in cities across the United States. Hearings were held in Baltimore, San Jose, and New York City in 2016. At the hearing in New York City, which was held in May of that year, St. Mary’s Episcopal Church on 126th St. in Harlem, residents were encouraged to share their concerns about problems they had experienced with their local postal stations. Many of those in attendance were either members of the New York Metro local and/or affiliates of Communities and Postal Workers United (n.d.), which describes its mission on its website as follows:

Communities and Postal Workers United is a national grassroots network of local coalitions and activists committed to direct action to save the U.S. Postal Service from service cuts, plant and office closures, Union-busting, and privatization.

We fight to preserve living-wage jobs, expand postal services, and save the postal service as a public entity operating in the best interests of the residents it serves.

We call on communities, small businesses, and postal workers across the nation to join together now to save America’s postal service.

These activists were critical in the campaign launched by the Alliance to Stop Staples. In 2013, the USPS contracted with Staples, Inc., to install mini post offices in eighty-two stores. These offices were to be staffed by Staples employees, rather than those working for the USPS. Needless to say, those who worked for Staples not only earned significantly less than those employed by the postal service but were not entitled to any of the benefits.

The APWU joined with other unions in launching the “U.S. Mail is Not for Sale Campaign.” Winning support from a number of unions, notably, the American Federation of Teachers, created a problem for Staples, which announced an end to the pilot program in July of 2014 following a successful boycott. Staples, however, continues to provide some of the same services under the auspices of the “Approved Shipper Program” which allows Staples to sell USPS products as well as those offered by UPS and FedEx. The APWU (2017) recently announced that it had successfully concluded its campaign and that the postal service had not renewed its contract with Staples.

Another initiative of the Grand Alliance is the reintroduction of the concept of a postal banking system. Postal banks were first proposed in 1871 and were finally adopted in 1911. The obvious opposition from the banking industry was somewhat quelled by the fact that interest rates and deposits were limited and banks saw the system as one which would reestablish trust in the financial system after the difficult period of the panic of 1907 (McMahon 1955).

Among those who called for the end to the system was Postmaster General, Arthur Summerfield, who was known as a “Red hunter” and was responsible for the imposition of loyalty oaths and the suspension of union officials who were suspected of having been members of the Communist Party (Rubio 2010, 146; Walsh and Mangum 1992, 60). Summerfield was appointed to the position by Dwight D. Eisenhower and served from 1953 until 1960. Dubbed the “Father of the Modern Post Office,” Summerfield (Summerfield and Hurd 1960, 184-85) called for changes in the organization of the postal service and for the introduction of technological innovations. The New York Times noted in the previously cited articles, “One of the principal links between post offices in the United States and their customers will soon be broken if recommendations for ending the Postal Savings system are followed.” Summerfield argued that it was “desirable that the Government withdraw from competitive private business at every point” (Blair 1957, 21).

After World War II, goods became available to meet pent-up consumer demand, banks raised their interest rates to two percent or higher and offered the same government guarantee as the Postal Savings System, and savings bonds provided a higher rate of interest. Deposits in the Postal Savings System declined, dropping to $416 million. (USPS, Postal Historian 2008, 2)

“In 1965 the postmaster generals started to endorse ending postal banking. In 1966 it was officially abolished as part of Lyndon Johnson’s streamlining of the federal government” (Baradaran 2014).

At the Grand Alliance hearing, Sarah Ludwig, founder and codirector of the New Economy Project, argued that the paucity of banks in specific neighborhoods in the city constituted a sound basis for supporting the reintroduction of a postal banking system. The group partnering with other organizations created “Change It Up!”—a public policy poster that tells the story of how banks have harmed communities and why we need a new economy. The Campaign for Postal Banking argues,

The Postal Service can deliver non-profit financial services ranging from paycheck cashing and bill payment to savings accounts and small dollar loans. For example, each post office could install ATMs, offering convenience to postal customers and offering recipients of public benefits access to funds without paying a fee. (Undated Flyer, Postal Banking: The Time Is Now)

At the same hearing, James Parrott, Deputy Director and Chief Economist for the Fiscal Policy Institute, argued in his public remarks, “Postal Banking could provide affordable, consumer-driven financial services to lower-income households throughout New York City and all across the country who are poorly served by traditional banks, and too often fall prey to predatory payday lenders and check cashiers” (Parrott 2016).

Strategic attempts to connect labor struggles with those of the community have met with some success particularly for low-wage workers (Silver 2003, 172). Employees of the USPS share a unique relationship with the communities in which they serve. Carriers and clerks recounted many instances in which they were able to provide information and/or assistance to a customer in need. Among the many examples provided in interviews and testimonies were those which described how a postal clerk saved an elderly customer from an email scam after she attempted to wire a considerable sum of money abroad (Grand Alliance to Save The Post Office, Public Testimony, May 12, 2016, Harlem Hearing). Others discussed the role of carriers in delivering medicine and social security checks in a timely fashion. Postal workers have reached out to teachers asking them to boycott stores in their effort to stymie the efforts at privatization attempted through the use of Staples and other retail outlets.

It is not surprising that the APWU has led the Grand Alliance and a number of these initiatives because they have the most to lose if privatization becomes a reality. The proposed public-private hybrid retains the postal carrier position as part of government service, but effectively eliminates the clerk craft from that sector. In addition, technology has had the most devastating impact both on the work of postal clerks and their ranks as the sorting of mail was increasingly mechanized and the skills of the clerks degraded (Baxter 1994, 64-67, 135-37; Ginsberg 2011, 2).

The hybrid nature of the postal service means that it has elements of both private- and public-sector institutions. Efforts are continuously being made to increase the productivity of employees while legitimizing the role of government in the provision of necessary communication and business services. The public is generally unaware that the service receives no tax-payer funds because it is still understood to be a part of the federal government. It suffers from the perception that it has not been able to keep up with the kinds of changes that have impacted our ways of communicating with one another, despite many examples to the contrary.

Management attempts to increase productivity have largely been ineffective and have been fought by postal workers, particularly letter carriers who have seen their relationships with the communities they serve diminished by the reconfiguration of delivery routes as well as the suggestion that individual mailboxes be replaced by curbside delivery or so-called “cluster boxes.” The introduction of the FSS and the closing of processing centers have not resulted in the efficiencies predicted by management and have made the public even more skeptical about the viability of the system.

Since the late 1960s, the two main postal unions, the APWU and the National Association of Letter Carriers, have intermittently worked together to oppose various attempts at privatization. When Mark Dimondstein was elected president of the APWU, he also vowed to aggressively address serious problems with the APWU contract and build greater cooperation among the four postal unions (APWU 2013). The other two unions, the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association and the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, signed on. Together, they issued the following statement:

The U.S. Postal Service is under unprecedented attack. A congressionally manufactured financial crisis drains the USPS of vital resources. Six-day delivery is under constant threat of elimination. The reduction of service standards and the elimination of half of the nation’s mail processing centers has slowed service and wiped out tens of thousands of good jobs. Post offices in cities and small towns are being sold or closed or having their hours cut back. Corporate privatizers seek to gain control over larger segments of postal operations—and to get their hands on the Postal Service’s $65 billion of annual revenue. The Postmaster General’s policies of subcontracting and degrading service are fueling the privatization drive. The four postal unions stand together to end the attack. We stand for a public Postal Service, enhancement and expansion of service, and protection of good union jobs in our communities. We stand with the people of our country in defense of their right to a universal postal service operated in the public interest. (A Postal Union Alliance Proclamation)

Recent arbitration and newly proposed legislation indicate that, at least for the moment, these efforts may meet with some success. The bill “addresses the pre-funding requirement of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA), which has wreaked havoc on Postal Service’s finances, through ‘Medicare integration’” (APWU 2016).

The last contract finally settled through arbitration and mediation was generally favorable for the clerical craft workers. The fight is hardly over, however, and the current and unsettled political climate will undoubtedly impact the unrelenting push for privatization in the public sector. Given the ideological predisposition of the incoming administration, a scenario in which package delivery is sold to FedEx and sorting and transporting to Pitney Bowes, does not seem as remote as it might have been. “The Postal Service is the nation’s second largest civilian employer—and a bastion of public sector unionism” (McCartin 2016, 77). Postal workers with a history of militancy, a commitment to protecting their hard fought gains and ties to community and social movements, provide a window into the fate of the labor movement in the United States.