NY METRO APWU AFL-CIO
This is a most crucial time in the history of the USPS and this union.. We need an all out effort to save our jobs. One thing that all of us can do is to contact our Congressional representative asking him or her to sign on to H.R. 22 as a co-sponsor. This legislation will provide necessary relief to enable the USPS to continue without cutting service or our jobs. For more info on H. R. 22 go to the March issue of The Union Mail.
Click on the link to contact your Congressional representative. It is easy to do and most necessary.
Chuck Zlatkin
Legislative and Political Director
New York Metro Area Postal Union
350 West 31st Street, 3rd floor
New York, NY 10001
212-563-7553, ext 113; Fax 212-643-9051 & Cell: 917-693-9427
SAVE THE NJI BMC
APWU Las Vegas NV
The House of Representatives
The House of Representatives passed a bill July 30 that would grant postal workers and other federal employees covered by FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) credit for unused sick leave when calculating their retirement annuities. Employees covered by CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) already receive credit for unused sick leave.
The measure, introduced by House Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), was included in a larger bill, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1108 - PDF), which Waxman also authored. The bill is similar to a bill (H.R. 5573), which was introduced earlier this year by Rep. James Moran (D-VA).
Under the provision (Title IV, Sec. 407), federal employees who retire within three years from the date of enactment would receive credit for 75 percent of unused sick leave; employees who retire more than three years after enactment of the legislation would get full credit, similar to CSRS employees. Federal employees hired after 1983 are covered by FERS; most of those hired in 1983 and before are covered by CSRS.
“This is an important bill, which we enthusiastically support,” said APWU President William Burrus. “It will finally give FERS-covered employees a benefit they have earned.”
The bill, which President Bush has threatened to veto, passed 326-102, giving it a veto-proof margin in the House. To see how your legislator voted, click here.
The tobacco bill now moves to the Senate, where it may be considered in September, after Congress returns from its summer recess. However, the Senate bill (S. 625) does not include the FERS sick-leave provisions. The fate of the FERS language may ultimately be decided in a House-Senate conference committee, if the Senate passes S. 625.
Title IV of H.R. 1108 also includes provisions of the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act (H.R. 6500), which would automatically enroll new employees in the Thrift Savings Plan; allow the TSP Board to designate a fund other than the G Fund as the default investment fund; establish a Roth IRA option, and give the TSP Board authority to add additional, self-directed investment options.
The FERS and TSP language are linked for budgetary purposes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 6500 would increase federal revenue by approximately $1.3 billion over the next 10 years, and this money could be used to offset the increased costs associated with FERS sick leave.
From David Swanson on the scene:
"Apparently the rules of Congress are designed to allow impeachable offenses to be discussed only in impeachment hearings. Apparently this didn't occur to Chairman Conyers when he decided to hold a non-impeachment impeachment hearing. As a result, his hearing may be quickly shut down, and he will have a choice of holding a real impeachment hearing, resigning, or dropping the pretense that he intends to resist Cheney and Bush in any way whatsoever.
"On the other hand, the rules do not permit the use of language that is personally offensive toward the President. Manual Sec. 370; 5 Hinds Sec. 5094. For example, it is out of order to call the President a 'liar' or a 'hypocrite' or to refer to accusations of sexual misconduct. Manual Sec. 370; 8 Cannon Sec. 2498; Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.16. A Member may refer to political motives of the President in debate. However, personal criticism, innuendo, ridicule, or terms of opprobrium are not in order. 8 Cannon Sec. 2497. For example, a Member may not in debate describe the President's veto of a bill as 'cowardly' (Manual Sec. 370), or charge that he has been 'intellectually dishonest' (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.15) or refer to him as 'giving aid and comfort' to the enemy (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.17). Members must abstain from personally offensive language even during impeachment proceedings."
Someone who violates that rule or the one below can have their remarks stricken and lose the privilege to speak for the rest of the hearing, and the process of somehow doing that can chew up lots of time.
From pp 17-18 of the House Rules
"Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness- (A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session if, in the presence of the number of members required under the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, the committee determines by vote of a majority of those present that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and (B) the committee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the committee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person."
But, following this rule, you'd have to go into closed session to play a video of Bush confessing to violating FISA or a video of Bush being warned about Katrina or a video of Bush suggesting it didn't much matter if his WMD lies were true. That is, statements that are in the public record would have to be kept "secret." That pretty well describes the culture of Washington, D.C.
Clearly we need to be prepared for this hearing to be shut down quickly, much to Conyers' great "regret." And we need to demand a real impeachment hearing in which "executive privilege" does not apply and in which witnesses are permitted to speak.
House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations.
Panel One
The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio.
The Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Representative from New York.
The Honorable Walter Jones, Representative from North Carolina.
The Honorable Brad Miller, Representative from North Carolina.
The Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Representative from New York.
The Honorable Walter Jones, Representative from North Carolina.
The Honorable Brad Miller, Representative from North Carolina.
Panel Two
The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York.
The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian.
The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian.
Nominee for President
The Honorable Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for
Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University.
School of Law
Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom
Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor.
Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law.
Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace.
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
HR 4236: The Mail Network Protection Act Scorecard
How the Congressional Members Who Represent Us Shape up on this crucial piece of legislation. The figures in the far right column are the NYMAPU members that live in each representative’s district. The member of Congress with an asterisk (*) next to their names are Republicans, all the rest are Democrats.
How the Congressional Members Who Represent Us Shape up on this crucial piece of legislation.
The Good Guys Who Are a Co-Sponsor of HR 4236
Donald Payne (NJ-10th) 885
Joseph Crowley (NY-7th) 702
Steve Rothman (NJ-9th) 591
Albio Sires (NJ-13th) 565
Edolphus Towns (NY-10th) 528
Yvette Clark (NY-11th) 422
Anthony Weiner (NY-9th) 374
Eliot Engel (NY-17th) 334
Jerrold Nadler (NY-8th) 304
Gary Ackerman (NY-5th) 228
Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4th) 123
John Hall (NY-19th) 81
Steve Israel (NY-2nd) 50
Chris Smith* (NJ-4th) 31
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20th) 1
Tim Bishop (NY-1st) 22
Robert Andrews (NJ-1st) 2
Frank LoBiondo* (NJ-2nd) 2
The Guys Who Are Not Yet On Our Side
Charles Rangel (NY-15th) 665
Vito Fossella* (NY-13th) 307
Nydia Velazquez (NY-12th) 297
Bill Pascrell, Jr.* (NJ-8th) 293
Michael Ferguson* (NJ-7th) 215
Carolyn Maloney (NY-14th) 211
Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-6th) 198
Scott Garrett * (NJ-5th) 120
Rodney Frelinghuyson* (NJ-11th) 98
Rush Holt (NJ-12th) 90
Paul Kanjorski (PA-11th) 67
Peter King* (NY-3rd) 42
Jim Saxon* (NJ-3rd) 30
Christopher Carney (PA-10th) 24
Michael Castle* (DE) 6
Robert Andrews (NJ-1st) 2
John McHugh* (NY-23) 1
War and the war on working people
Working people are hurting. And we don’t talk about how the cost of the war impacts upon each of us financially. We should. This society cannot maintain the cost of the war and the occupation of Iraq without having devastating effects on the entire fabric of our society. The war is now at its fifth year. Spending for the war remains at 250 million dollars a day. The war is financed through taxes and borrowed money. When money is discussed in such huge amounts it is hard to understand it. Taxpayers in New York City paid 4.6 billion dollars for the cost of the war on Iraq.
NY Metro APWU AFL-CIO
NY Metro APWU officers are in discussions with the Postal Service about management’s plans to restructure departments associated with the Expedited Service Function, which includes processing and tracking Express Mail.
The union will challenge any abolishment or reversion of duty assignments of Administrative Clerk-Express Mail, Level 6, (Occupation Code 2340- 81xx) and Express Mail Technician, Level 7 (Occupation Code 2340-82-xx).
Grievances protesting such abolishments and reversions shall cite the following:
- Management’s actions violate Article 37, because the work is not “going away;” it is being shifted to other full-time duty assignments.
- In addition, management’s actions violate Article 1.6a or 1.6b (as applicable) if the work is shifted to non-bargaining unit employees.
- Management’s actions violate Article 7 if the work is shifted to non-Clerk Craft bargaining unit employees, such as Mail Handlers or Letter Carriers.
Regardless of any potential grievance at the nation level, local grievances will be filed on any violations of the contract.
Dispute Filed Over USPS Failure to Provide Notification of Subcontracting
The APWU has initiated a national-level dispute over the Postal Service's failure to comply with their obligations under Article 32.1.C of the National Agreement to furnish notification to locals of subcontracting of bargaining unit work at the local level. The dispute follows the Postal Service's response to an earlier inquiry regarding management's understanding of their obligations under Article 32.1.C.
Unfair Labor Practice Grievances Regarding Weingarten Violations
Filing an unfair labor practice charge regarding Weingarten violations, two separate charges have been filed differentiating between those based on interference with the steward and those depriving employees of their Weingarten Rights. In addition, an individual grievance has been filed on behalf of the employee whose Weingarten Rights were violated, and a separate class action grievance shall be filed by the union on behalf of the steward whose rights to participate in an investigatory interview were violated.