U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–365 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–320

VIEWS FROM THE POSTAL WORKFORCE ON

IMPLEMENTING POSTAL REFORM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 25, 2007

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, 

FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

JOHN KILVINGTON, Staff Director 

KATY FRENCH, Minority Staff Director 

LIZ SCRANTON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Collins [ex officio] ............................................................................... 3

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 13

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2007

William Burrus, President, American Postal Workers Union ............................. 4

John Hegarty, President, National Postal Mail Handlers Union ........................ 7

Donnie Pitts, President, National Rural Letter Carriers Association ................. 9

William H. Young, President, National Association of Letter Carriers .............. 11

Louis Atkins, Executive Vice President, National Association of Postal Supervisors ..................................................................................................................... 27

Dale Goff, President, National Association of Postmasters of the United 

States .................................................................................................................... 29

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Atkins, Louis: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57

Burrus, William: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Goff, Dale: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Hegarty, John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38

Pitts, Donnie: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Young, William H.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Charles M. Mapa, President of the National League of Postmasters .......... 69

John V. ‘‘Skip’’ Maraney, Executive Director of The National Star Route 

Mail Contractors Association with attachments ........................................ 76

(1)

VIEWS FROM THE POSTAL WORKFORCE ON 

IMPLEMENTING POSTAL REFORM 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2007

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m., in Room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Akaka, and Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. I am tempted to say the Subcommittee will 

come to order, but the Subcommittee has already come to order. 

This is one of the quietest gatherings I have ever seen, at least for 

this crowd. 

We welcome you all and thank you, on behalf of Senator Collins 

and myself, our thanks to our witnesses for taking your time to be 

here today, for preparing for this hearing, and for your willingness 

to respond to our questions. We want to thank you for your help, 

Senator Collins and myself and our colleagues here in the Senate 

and the House, as we worked for years to try to update the Postal 

Service’s business model. 

I know that the final Postal reform bill that was signed into law 

by the President in December didn’t turn out to be exactly as we 

had all hoped, at least not in some areas, but I think your commitment and the commitment of those that you lead to getting the bill 

right, or mostly right, helped us start a new era for the Postal 

Service. Your efforts and those of a lot of people who helped us certainly are commendable. 

I think what we were able to accomplish together will, if implemented properly, and I would underline that, if implemented properly, will be a good thing for the American people and for the men 

and women that you are privileged to represent and that we are 

privileged to represent. 

This is, as you may know, the second of three hearings that we 

are going to be holding this year to hear the views from the Postal 

Service, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and key stakeholders 

in the Postal community on the implementation of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This is also a hearing I have 

2

been looking forward to. I have always thought that Postal employees, that is, the people who interact with the public and Postal customers every day, can tell us the most about what is working at 

the Postal Service and what isn’t. 

In addition, under the new pricing and regulatory regime currently being developed by the Postal Regulatory Commission, the 

Postal Service will need to work closely with its employees to find 

efficiencies and to seek out innovative new ways to make Postal 

products more valuable. 

Postal employees have a lot to add to the discussion about what 

needs to be done going forward to make Postal reform work. That 

is why I have been disappointed by some recent developments that 

have put a strain on labor-management relations at the Postal 

Service. I was troubled to learn that the American Postal Workers 

Union has been forced to sue the Postal Service to gain entry to 

meetings of the Mailers Technical Advisory Committee or even to 

learn anything at all about what happens at that group’s meetings. 

I know that this group is now called the Mailers and Unions Technical Advisory Committee, but I also know that the committee is 

an important body that facilitates the sharing of ideas about how 

the Postal Service can improve the way it does business. I think 

the Postal Service could benefit from giving employee representatives a voice in these discussions. 

I have also been troubled by recent developments in the area of 

contracting out. While I have always argued that the Postal Service 

must do all it can to cut costs, taking work that is traditionally performed by Postal employees and giving it to contractors just because they can do it cheaper is not always a good idea. An organization like the Postal Service that depends so much on daily direct 

contact with its customers cannot afford, at least in my view, to 

rely solely on contractors to make those contacts. 

I am pleased, then, that the Postal Service has recently reached 

a tentative contract agreement with the National Association of 

Letter Carriers that places some restrictions on the contracting out 

of mail delivery. That agreement also, as I understand it, sets up 

a joint carrier-Postal Service committee that will seek to find a 

more permanent resolution to the debate over contracting out. It is 

my hope that the other unions represented here will play a role in 

that committee’s discussion at some point down the road. Dialogue 

with the Postal Service, the letter carriers have proven, is how this 

issue will be resolved. 

For now, we look forward to your testimony today on contracting 

out and on the other issues that the Postal Service is grappling 

with as we await the beginning of the new system that we created 

together last year. My thanks for your participation, for your presence, and for your hard work and all the hard work of the men and 

women that you are privileged to represent. 

Since Dr. Coburn is not here yet—I think he is coming. But since 

he is not here yet, I would like to introduce my colleague from 

Maine, who worked at least as hard as I did, and I know her staff 

did, as well, on this legislation for the last God knows how many 

years. It is a privilege to be here with you and you are recognized 

for as much time as you wish to consume. 

3

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. That is a very dangerous invitation to ever give 

a U.S. Senator, to take as much time as she would like to consume. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your graciousness in allowing me 

to make an opening statement and I very much appreciate the opportunity to join you today. 

As the Chairman is well aware, when I was Chairman back in 

the good old days, the Postal issues were handled at the full Committee because I felt they were so important and I wanted to make 

sure I had a pivotal role in all the Postal issues that come along. 

With the reorganization, they are now at the Subcommittee level, 

but they are in very good hands with Senator Carper as the Chairman of this Subcommittee. But he is allowing me occasionally to 

come to his Subcommittee hearings because he knows that my concern and interest in the Postal Service and support for its employees remains undiminished, so I do appreciate the opportunity to be 

here. 

When I look out at the crowd and at the witness table today, it 

really is old home week, as well, since the long and difficult process 

of bringing about the most comprehensive modernization of the 

Postal Service in 30 years was successful only due to the close consultation that we had with the entire range of experts and stakeholders, the Postal Service officials, the mailing community, the 

public, and, of course, the Postal employee associations and unions 

which are represented here today. And although we did not agree 

on every issue, and a bill like this always involves compromise, I 

think that all of us can be proud to have played a role in getting 

Postal reform legislation signed into law. The insights and the involvement of employee groups were invaluable in this effort. 

But the real test of legislation is not in getting it passed, but in 

seeing that it works. It is essential that the steps toward implementation remain true to our original goals, and I want to just repeat the three original goals that I know we have had since the beginning. 

First was to ensure that affordable universal service remains. It 

is so critical. It is such a part of our heritage and I want it to be 

part of our future as well, and that universal service principle was 

one that has always been very important to me. 

Second, we wanted to strengthen the Postal Service because it is the linchpin of a $900 billion mailing industry that employs nine 

million Americans. 

And third, we wanted to secure the futures of the more than 

750,000 Postal employees who make this remarkable component of 

American society and our economy work, and this was as important 

as the other two goals. I will never forget the GAO coming before 

our Committee and warning that the Postal Service was in a death 

spiral and raising questions about its very viability into the 21st 

Century. 

We drafted the legislation with those three goals in mind and 

your continual involvement is essential. Whether the employees 

you represent work in a huge distribution plant, in the community 

post office, or alone on a delivery route, in the city or in rural 

America, you provide a level of knowledge and experience that is 

essential. So I look forward to hearing your views today. 

4

1The prepared statement of Mr. Burrus appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. I think Senator Akaka is on his way. 

He is going to join us, and when he gets here, I am going to offer 

him the opportunity, if he wants, to offer an opening statement. 

But in the meantime, why don’t we just go ahead and get started. We are working, on the Senate floor today, we are working on 

one of our appropriations bills, the Homeland Security appropriations bill which Senator Collins and I have a whole lot of interest 

in. We will probably be interrupted somewhere along the line for 

votes, but I will just ask you to bear with us and we will try to 

do that as quickly as we can. 

Let me make short introductions, if I could, for each of our witnesses, and we will start with William Burrus, also known as Bill 

Burrus. He is President of the American Postal Workers Union. 

Bill Burrus was elected President in 2001, becoming the first African American ever to be elected President of a national union. Mr. 

Burrus started with the Postal Service in 1958 at the age of 12, 

maybe a little bit older, and he served in a number of leadership 

positions with the APWU. He also serves as Vice President of the 

Executive Council of the AFL–CIO and is Chairman of the AFL–

CIO’s Committee on Civil and Human Rights. Welcome. 

John Hegarty became President of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union in July 2002 and was reelected to that position at the 

union’s national convention in 2004. For the 10 years prior to becoming national President, Mr. Hegarty served as the president of 

his union local in New England. Was that in Springfield? 

Mr. HEGARTY. Springfield. The six south New England States. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. He was employed as a mail handler in 

Springfield, Massachusetts, beginning in 1984. Welcome. 

Donnie Pitts is President of the National Rural Letter Carriers 

Association. He is currently serving his second 1-year term in that 

position, after serving two terms as Vice President. He served at 

his union and at the Postal Service for a total of 37 years. 

And finally, William H. Young is President of the National Association of Letter Carriers. He took office in December 2002 after 

serving in a number of national leadership positions for the union 

since 1990. He began his Postal career in 1965, more than 40 years 

ago. 

With those introductions completed, I would ask each of our witnesses to try to keep your oral comments to about 5 minutes. We 

won’t be too strict on it, but roughly 5 minutes. Your entire statements will be part of the record. 

Mr. Burrus, you are recognized and I would invite you to proceed. Thank you again for joining us. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM BURRUS,1 PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

POSTAL WORKERS UNION 

Mr. BURRUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Senator Collins, other Members of the Subcommittee as they arrive, 

thank you for providing me this opportunity to testify on behalf of 

the 300,000 dedicated Postal employees who our union is privileged 

to represent. 

5

I commend the Subcommittee through your leadership, Mr. 

Chairman, for convening this hearing on the important subject of 

subcontracting and other issues in the U.S. Postal Service. In the 

interest of brevity, Mr. Chairman, I request the opportunity to 

summarize my prepared statement and enter the full testimony 

into the record. 

Senator CARPER. Your full testimony will be entered into the 

record, so feel free to proceed. 

Mr. BURRUS. Thank you. For more than a decade, virtually all 

of the legislative focus on the U.S. Postal Service was based on the 

belief that absent radical reform, this institution faced eminent demise. Our union did not share this belief and viewed it as an attempt to undermine collective bargaining. However, the Act has become law and we promised to lend our best effort to making it 

work. 

But now with the ink on the legislation barely dry and with new 

regulations spawned by the law yet to be written, we turn our attention to the unfinished business of reform, the subcontracting of 

Postal services. Throughout the torturous debate over Postal reform, not a single proposal was made to privatize the Postal Service. Yet Postal management, in concert with private enterprises, 

has begun to travel resolutely down this road without the approval 

of Congress. The subcontracting of delivery routes, which has been 

the subject of much recent discussion, is just one aspect of a dangerous trend: The wholesale conversion of a vital public service to 

one performed privately for profit. 

The U.S. Postal Service adoption of a business strategy based on 

outsourcing is especially troubling in view of the obligation to military veterans and its responsibility to provide career opportunities 

for all Postal employees. But nonetheless, the U.S. Postal Service 

has adopted a business model that strives to privatize transportation, mail processing, maintenance, and delivery. 

As the Washington Post reported this month, a prominent mailing industry spokesman recently opined, ‘‘In the not-too-distant future, the Postal Service could evolve into something which could be 

called the master contractor, where it maintains its government 

identity but all the services would be performed by private contractors.’’ This is a private investor’s dream, a tax-exempt public monopoly with revenues of $80 billion per year. Eager businessmen 

will seize the opportunity, divide the pieces of the Postal Service 

among themselves for substantial private financial gain. 

Perhaps the most insidious example of this march to privatization is the operation of the Mailers Technical Advisory Committee, 

a panel composed of high-ranking Postal officials and mailing industry executives. At closed-door meetings, top-level Postal officials 

entertain policy recommendations by the Nation’s biggest mailers, 

and despite the Government in the Sunshine laws the public is excluded from their deliberations, as are individual consumers, small 

businesses, and, of course, labor unions representing the employees. 

The APWU and the Consumer Alliance for Postal Services have 

filed a lawsuit challenging this secret policy making, which has operated for many years in relative obscurity except to Postal insiders. But Congress has passed a law prohibiting the very secrecy 

6

that is being practiced. Under this law, it should be fairly easy to 

find out which Postal policies and programs originated and were finalized on the advice of the industry representatives in MTAC. The 

Act requires that committee meetings be open to the public and 

that minutes of meetings be available. 

After the removal of the minutes from the official website and 

the request of my union for access, I am informed that such minutes are now available in an abbreviated form, but to date, they 

have not responded favorably to our requests for membership. 

The secrecy of this powerful advisory committee is now taking on 

an even more ominous tone. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act maintained that the Postal Service publish new 

service standards in consultation with the Postal Regulatory Commission. It is a matter of grave concern that representatives of the 

Commission, rather than awaiting formal proposals from the Postal 

Service, have been invited to attend secret MTAC meetings where 

these standards are under discussion. These standards will be the 

heartbeat of Postal services in the future, and no single entity 

should have undue influence on their creation. 

On the issue of privatization of the U.S. Postal Service, it is imperative that Congress take a stand, insist on its rights and its responsibilities to set public policy. What is at stake is whether an 

independent Federal agency that performs a vital public service 

should be converted to private, for-profit enterprises. 

I previously testified before the House Subcommittee and asked 

that lawmakers refrain from substituting their judgment for that 

of the parties who are directly involved because the road of intervention is a slippery slope. If you adopt a bill that addresses subcontracting of a specific Postal service, who will resolve the ensuing 

disputes? Will courts and judges be called upon to replace arbitrators and the parties’ representatives as the interpreters of the provisions that you imposed? 

We believe that the USPS and its unions are best suited to make 

the many decisions and compromises that are required in all matters involving wages, hours, and working conditions for the employees we represent, and I congratulate the Postal Service and the National Association of Letter Carriers for resolving their major dispute within the framework of collective bargaining. 

However, there are issues of such importance that Congress 

must intervene and set public policy. If you believe, as we do, that 

the Nation’s mail service demands a level of trust between the government and the American people requiring the use of dedicated, 

trustworthy career employees who are official agents of the government, you can achieve your objective without bargaining in our 

stead. You can accomplish this goal by requiring the Postal Service 

to negotiate over subcontracting. This simple minor modification 

would place the issue in the forum where it belongs. You would not 

be breaking new ground because you have previously granted us 

the authority to bargain. To address the important issues of contracting, we need the opportunity, and that will require your assistance. 

Thank you for providing our members the opportunity to express 

our views on these important subjects and I would be pleased at 

7

1The prepared statement of Mr. Hegarty appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

the appropriate time to respond to any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. President Burrus, thank you very much. 

We have been joined by Senator Akaka and I invite him to give 

an opening statement. I think when we finish this first round of 

witnesses, when they have concluded, when Mr. Young concludes 

his statement, I will call on you for your opening statement and 

then we will go into questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. We are delighted that you are here. Mr. 

Hegarty, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN HEGARTY,1 PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION 

Mr. HEGARTY. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Senator Collins, 

andSenator Akaka, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today. 

The National Postal Mail Handlers Union serves as the exclusive 

bargaining representative for approximately 57,000 mail handlers 

employed by the U.S. Postal Service. I will not repeat the details 

of my April statement to your Subcommittee, but would ask that 

it be included in the record of this hearing, and I also ask that today’s written testimony be included as I will only summarize it. 

Senator CARPER. Without objection. 

Mr. HEGARTY. Thank you. You have asked us to address the effects of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act on Postal 

employees. This is a difficult topic at this early stage after enactment of the legislation, but during the 13 years that Postal reform 

was debated, we continued our long history of labor stability within 

the collective bargaining process. At this point in time, from the 

perspective of any individual mail handler who works on the floor 

at any major Postal facility, the most significant change made by 

the new legislation is the mandated cut in the workers’ compensation program. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we often work in dangerous conditions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your 

efforts in initiating the studies of the workplace injuries in the 

Postal Service. The Mail Handlers Union is engaged in several 

joint efforts at reducing these dangers, including, first, the Mail Security Task Force, which grew out of the 2001 anthrax situation 

and has developed specific protocols related to such incidents. The 

Task Force also addresses a potential pandemic flu and natural 

disaster that could disrupt mail processing and delivery. 

Second, the Ergonomic Risk Reduction Program, which has been 

very successful in reducing repetitive motion injuries, probably by 

as much as 35 percent. It has been estimated that this program 

saves, on average, 20 injuries per facility per year, about a five-fold 

return on the dollar. 

Third, the Voluntary Protection Program, which rather than 

looking at recurring injuries looks at the specific cause of a specific 

often traumatic injury. During the past 5 years, there have been 

measurable differences in the injury rates in facilities that use this 

program versus those that do not. 

8

I bring up these joint management-labor programs for a reason. 

They are one of the value-added benefits of our union. Our efforts 

make the Postal Service more efficient and Postal employees more 

productive. There are no comparable savings with a privatized 

workforce. 

Another important aspect of the Postal reform legislation is the 

flexibility provided to the Postal Service in pricing its products and 

responding to economic crises. The legislation specifically is intended to recognize the volatile world in which we live, where gasoline can cost $35 a barrel one month and $70 a barrel shortly 

thereafter, or extreme incidents, such as the deadly anthrax attack. 

Consequently, the exigency clause and banking provision were 

strengthened during Congressional debate to cover not just extraordinary events, but other exceptional circumstances not limited to 

those I have already noted. The Postal Service needs such flexibility. 

Let me also address the public pronouncements of Postal management and some members of the Board of Governors suggesting 

that the Postal Service must privatize to stay within the price cap 

set by the Consumer Price Index. We reject that notion. We contend that these arguments ignore the true cost of privatized labor. 

It is not simply our wages and benefits versus theirs. As we saw 

at Walter Reed and elsewhere, there are hidden costs and perilous 

dangers in privatizing. Furthermore, as I noted in the safety and 

health areas, unions provide an environment that can be a win-win 

situation for all. 

Some will argue that getting the work performed more cheaply 

is the same as getting the work performed more efficiently, more 

safely, or more securely. The premise of this argument, however, 

that the Postal Service will save money by allowing private contractors to perform the work currently performed by mail handlers 

and other career Postal employees is totally false. Recent experience has shown that subcontracting of mail handler jobs has not 

worked. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. 

For example, the largest subcontract for mail handling work ever 

signed by the Postal Service had Emery Worldwide Airlines processing Priority Mail. Nearly 1,000 mail handler jobs were 

privatized. Today, the work at those facilities has been returned to 

mail handlers, but not before the Postal Service and its customers 

suffered severe losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars. One 

governor stated publicly that the Emery subcontract was one of the 

worst decisions that the Board of Governors had ever made. The 

United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General released 

an audit report that concluded that Emery cost more and did not 

meet overall processing goals. 

Finally, the Postal Service is an important career for millions of 

Americans, allowing entry into the middle class. A Postal career 

has allowed millions of American families, including my own and 

undoubtedly many other families represented here today, to buy a 

home, send their kids to college, and pay their fair share of taxes. 

We do not believe that Congress should encourage a Postal Service 

of poorly-paid employees for whom health care means a visit to the 

emergency room. 

9

1The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

Who handles your personal mail and who has access to your 

identity is a public policy issue. Sending military mail to Iraq or 

Afghanistan via a private subcontractor is also a policy issue. The 

piecemeal privatization of this Nation’s communications network is 

a policy issue. We do not believe that Postal reform legislation, 

passed less than 1 year ago, should be a convenient excuse to dismantle the Nation’s Postal system. 

Thank you, Chairman Carper. I will be glad to answer any questions that the Subcommittee may have. 

Senator CARPER. President Hegarty, thank you very much for 

that statement. 

We now turn to President Donnie Pitts. Welcome. Your full statement will be entered into the record. 

TESTIMONY OF DONNIE PITTS,1 PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

RURAL LETTER CARRIERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Donnie Pitts and I am President of the 

111,000-member National Rural Letter Carriers Association. I 

want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing on contracting out. 

As of July 2007, rural carriers are serving on more than 76,000 

rural routes. We deliver to 37.6 million new delivery points and 

drive more than 3.4 million miles per day. We sell stamps and 

Money Orders, accept customer parcels, Express and Priority Mail, 

signature and delivery confirmation, registered and certified mail, 

and serve rural and suburban America to the ‘‘last mile.’’

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that as of July 17, there 

are 35 cosponsors of Senator Harkin’s bill, S. 1457, a bill that 

would prevent the U.S. Postal Service from entering into any contracts with any motor carrier or other person for the delivery of 

mail on any route with one or more families per mile. 

I am saddened, however, that only one Republican, Senator 

Cochran of Mississippi, is a cosponsor of S. 1457. I had hoped this 

bill would have received more bipartisan support. Is it because the 

Postal Service has suggested that contract delivery is a matter for 

collective bargaining and not a policy question? I hope not, because 

contracting out most certainly raises significant policy questions, 

particularly when the safety and security of the mails is at stake. 

Mr. Chairman, I am sure by now that everyone knows that the 

NRLCA and the Postal Service could not reach an agreement during our recent contract negotiations and we are headed toward interest arbitration. What is less well known is that, unlike our 

friends in the city carrier craft, Contract Delivery Services were 

never brought forward during the union’s talks with the Postal 

Service. We don’t see what the Postal Service is doing now as a collective bargaining issue. We see it as a policy issue. 

There are a number of different policies already in place with the 

Postal Service to limit what can and cannot be contracted out. Our 

national agreement with the Postal Service contains an article 

which addresses subcontracting, Article 32. Article 32 sets the 

standards and policies under which routes can be subcontracted. 

10

The Postal Service’s P5 Handbook, which ‘‘establishes the national 

policy and procedures for the operation and administration of Highway Contract Routes,’’ that handbook language states that a route 

that serves less than one family per mile may be converted to CDS, 

or Contract Delivery Services. 

Additionally, we have grievances at the national level that challenge the improper contracting out of mail delivery. Mr. Chairman, 

we as a union have done everything within our power, utilizing 

policies and agreements with the Postal Service, to stop the Postal 

Service from contracting out delivery of mail. Despite this, the 

Postal Service continues to ignore all these policies and agreements 

and continues to contract out routes. I am asking that you support 

S. 1457 and pass this vital legislation to stop Contract Delivery 

Services. 

In May, the House of Representatives held a site hearing in Chicago regarding the slow delivery of mail. Congressmen in New 

Mexico are scheduling meetings with officials from the Postal Service to discuss staffing concerns and persistent service problems 

throughout New Mexico. When the Postal Service announces the 

consolidation or closing of a facility within the State, that Senator 

gets involved. During the passage of Postal reform, even an issue 

like work sharing was made into a policy issue. Every time the 

Postal Service enters into work sharing agreement with a mailer, 

the end result is a Postal employee not performing the work. 

What I am trying to point out using these examples is that when 

there is a problem with the mail service, closing of facilities, security, or other problems, Congress gets involved to correct that problem. Why isn’t Congress getting involved in stopping contracting 

out? Do they not see this as an issue just as important as service 

problems or consolidation of facilities? I have no problem telling 

you this is an issue that is just as important as the others. 

Letter carriers are the face of the Postal Service. We are the ones 

the American public sees out in the streets every day delivering 

their mail. They get to know us, they become our friends, and they 

trust us. This honor for the third year in the row has earned the 

Postal Service the distinction of being named the Most Trusted 

Government Agency by the Ponemon Institute. 

I reference this survey because the public perception of the Postal Service is delivery. If the Postal Service fails to deliver because 

of here today, gone tomorrow contractors, the mailers will find another way to get their message to the public. I care about the future of the Postal Service. I want the Postal Service to succeed. But 

hiring non-loyal, non-liable contractors is not the way to ensure the 

success of the Postal Service. 

Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Collins spent years passing Postal reform to make the Postal Service more viable for the 21st Century. I would like to thank both of you and the Subcommittee for 

their involvement in passing P.L. 109–435 and P.L. 108–18 relieving approximately $105 billion in obligations for the Postal Service. 

I thank you for allowing me to testify here today, and if there 

are any questions you would like to ask me, I will be glad to try 

to answer those. 

Senator CARPER. Good. President Pitts, thank you very much. 

Thanks for working with us, too. 

11

1The prepared statement of Mr. Young appears in the Appendix on page 51. 

President Bill Young, you are batting clean-up here today, Mr. 

Young. Take it away. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. YOUNG,1 PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS 

Mr. YOUNG. Third baseman. I love it. Good afternoon, Chairman 

Carper and Ranking Member and other distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee. Before I begin, I want to congratulate both Senator Carper and Senator Collins on the outstanding work that they 

did in the long debate over Postal reform. It wasn’t an easy thing 

to form a consensus on Postal reform, but you were able to do it 

and my hat is off to both of you for your efforts and all the other 

people that worked so hard achieving that. 

Our goals in Postal reform were straightforward, to enhance the 

long-term viability of the most efficient, affordable Postal Service 

in the world and to protect a legitimate interest of America’s Postal 

employees in general and letter carriers in particular. If properly 

implemented, I am confident the law will do exactly that. 

I want to again express my strongest opposition to contracting 

out the core functions of the Postal Service. As a letter carrier and 

a union leader, I make no apologies for standing up for decent jobs 

for American workers. The trend towards outsourcing to contingent 

low worker, no-benefit contractors has been broadly used in both 

private and public sectors in recent years. The results for working 

people have been downright disastrous. At a time of so-called prosperity, the ranks of the workers without health insurance or pension protections have surged to the tens of millions. The Federal 

Government, the U.S. Postal Service, should not contribute to this 

disgraceful trend. Exploiting contractors who deserve the same 

kind of pay and Congressionally mandated benefit protections afforded to career employees is unacceptable. 

But contracting out is also misguided as a business strategy. 

NALC believes that CDS is penny-wise and pound-foolish and it 

would damage the brand of the Postal Service by undermining 

America’s trust in the service. Mail delivery is the core function of 

the Postal Service. Outsourcing these jobs threatens the long-term 

viability of the agency. 

Now, the Postal Service would have you believe there is a strong 

correlation between the two issues, the new pricing indexing system and contracting out. Outsourcing delivery, it now maintains, is 

necessary because the new law contains a price indexing system requiring the Postal Service to limit rate increases to less than the 

CPI. However, the decision to contract out work was taken long before Postal reform became law. The Postal Service took the first 

steps towards outsourcing in 2003. CDS was coming whether Postal reform passed or not. The fact is, holding rate hikes in line with 

the CPI is nothing new for the Postal Service. Just examine our 

last 35-year history. We have done it every single time for the last 

35 years. 

Contracting out is not the Postal Service’s only choice. Productivity growth and boosts in revenues are preferable strategies. 

Postal labor productivity has increased far more than compensation 

12

costs over the years and it will continue to do so in the future if 

the Postal Service embraces a partnership with its dedicated career 

workers and their unions. Indeed, 2 weeks ago, we reached an 

agreement on a new 5-year contract that seeks to facilitate the 

smooth introduction of flat mail automation technology that will 

cut labor costs significantly. 

That agreement also commits letter carriers to a program called 

Customer Connect that seeks to dramatically increase Postal Service revenues. I am proud to tell you that, to date, we have increased Postal Service revenues by $300 million through this program, and that is with less than one-tenth of our total workforce 

involved in the program. Over the coming 5 years, we will get more 

people involved and we fully expect that revenue figure will increase substantially. 

I believe it is safe to say that expanding outsourcing was the last 

thing that Congress had in mind when it enacted Postal reform. In 

fact, we believe that outsourcing violates a number of key public 

policies that were reaffirmed by Postal reform. For example, the 

law still gives preference in hiring to veterans and mandates with 

some exceptions collective bargaining rights for workers employed 

by the Postal Service. The widespread expansion of Contract Delivery Services would make a mockery of these policies. This is why 

the NALC applauded Senator Harkin’s bill to limit outsourcing to 

traditional Highway Contract Routes. 

We also want to thank the other 35 Senators who have cosponsored the legislation. Together, they sent a strong message to the 

Postal Service. That message was reinforced by the overwhelming 

support that we received from our public during the dozens of informational pickets that we conducted around the country during 

the past several months. Plain and simple, the American public 

wants career letter carriers to deliver their mail. It is just that 

easy. 

As I mentioned earlier, the NALC and the Postal Service recently 

reached agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement. It 

contains two Memorandums of Understanding related to subcontracting. The memos may be relevant to your consideration of S. 

1457 or any future legislation on the issue of Postal outsourcing. 

First, we signed an MOU that prohibits for the life of the contract, 

5 years, the outsourcing of work now performed by career letter 

carriers in 3,000 city carrier only installations. Second, we signed 

another memo that established a Joint Committee on Article 32 to 

review existing policies and practices concerning the contracting 

out of mail delivery in other installations. We have a 6-month moratorium there. 

I want to address what the two memos mean for the long-term 

debate between the Postal Service and many other interested parties about whether outsourcing is a bargaining issue or a policy 

issue. I maintained from the very beginning of this debate that the 

NALC has the ability to represent the letter carriers covered by our 

collective bargaining agreement. But who provides service to new 

deliveries is both a collective bargaining issue and a public policy 

issue. By expanding Contract Delivery Services to potentially serve 

all new deliveries, the Postal Service has transformed a contract 

delivery into a public policy issue. 

13

We have maintained the kind of workers assigned to handle new 

deliveries in the future should not be left alone to Postal management to decide. In fact, it shouldn’t be left to the Postal unions 

alone to decide. Congress has mandated collective bargaining for 

Postal employees in general and only it can decide whether to 

make exceptions to this policy. 

I believe we have reached a sensible and constructive approach 

to dealing with this difficult issue. Although the Postal Service 

seems to be moving in the right direction, it is not committed to 

abandon CDS altogether. For that reason, I welcome this hearing, 

the Subcommittee’s oversight of the Postal Service, and I sincerely 

hope that this is an issue that you will continue to monitor. 

Thanks again for all the Members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

Senator CARPER. President Young, thank you very much. In fact, 

thank you all for very fine statements. 

Senator Collins, thanks for joining us and again for your leadership on this front. 

And we have been joined by Senator Akaka, and I want to recognize Senator Akaka for any statement that he would like to offer, 

and then we will move on to questions of our panelists. Thank you. 

Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper. Thank 

you for holding this hearing. I am interested in hearing Postal 

workers’ perspectives on implementing Postal reform. 

First, my thanks to Postal workers represented by all of our panelists and who are responsible for over 212 billion pieces of mail delivered to over 144 million homes and businesses across the country. For many Americans, the Postal Service is the face of the Federal Government. 

Last year, after several years of work, the Congress finally succeeded in passing meaningful reform to the Postal Service which 

should keep the Postal Service strong far into the future. However, 

even after passing the important legislation, there remain concerns. 

The United States has always relied on Federal employees to 

perform the most important of tasks. The security and sanctity of 

our mail has been one of these. However, I know that increasingly, 

the Postal Service is relying on contractors to deliver and in some 

cases process the mail. I have been concerned for some time about 

the increasing government-wide reliance on contracting out. 

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management and the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I have directed my Subcommittee staff to examine closely the 

problem of contracting out throughout the Federal Government. 

While there is a place for some contracting, it is important that no 

Postal employee ever lose their job to a contractor. Further, those 

who are contractors must be held to the same high standards of excellence and conduct as are our outstanding Federal Postal workforce. The Postal Service must carefully weigh the benefits and 

costs of contracting, which we know are not merely monetary. 

14

I am very interested to hear further from you and to hear your 

responses to our questions and look forward to continuing to work 

with you to help our Postal Service be the best. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. Senator Akaka, thank you so much for 

coming today and for your help on Postal reform. 

As you know, one of the most contentious provisions in the Postal 

reform bill was the so-called exigency provision laying out when 

the Postal Service should be able to raise rates above the CPI rate 

cap, at least for market-dominant products. Our staffs, the mailing 

community, the Postal Service spent months, maybe years, debating how that language should be crafted. We were finally able to 

come to an agreement almost at the 11th hour, as you will recall. 

Now we are at the point where the ball is in the court of the Postal 

Regulatory Commission and they are busy trying to figure out how 

our language should be implemented. 

What guidance would each of you give the Commissioners as 

they complete their work? Under what conditions do you think the 

Postal Service should be permitted to breach the rate cap? Mr. 

Hegarty. 

Mr. HEGARTY. We don’t think right now that the Postal Regulatory Commission should be defining the exigency circumstances 

because there are so many different things that could happen that 

we may not foresee. The law says either exceptional or extraordinary. That language was put in there for a reason and the Postal 

Service has asked the Postal Regulatory Commission to hold off on 

issuing definitive regulations so that each case on a case-by-case 

basis can be addressed. 

Next week there could be a war that breaks out somewhere 

across who knows where that could raise the price of oil, like I said 

in my testimony, from $35 a barrel to $70 a barrel. I think that 

is pretty much a clear-cut example that everyone would agree the 

Postal Service may need to raise rates under the exigency provision. 

There are other things we may not be aware of right now that 

could happen. The anthrax attack from 2001 was another example 

where the Postal Service needed to put in protective equipment, 

and thankfully, Congress came to the forefront on that and approved funding for that detection equipment. 

So I think that the Postal Regulatory Commission should not 

narrowly define exigency circumstances right now. I think they 

need to be decided on a case-by-case basis as they come up. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. Other presidents, please. 

Mr. BURRUS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wish they would use a different word. I have such a difficult time repeating ‘‘exigency.’’

Senator CARPER. It is refreshing to know I am not the only one. 

[Laughter.] 

I have stumbled over that word for months now. 

Mr. BURRUS. My union also counsels that they should be as flexible as possible. To set in today’s conditions at this time, to predict 

the future and try to coin words that reflect the unusual extraordinary circumstances that may occur is a most difficult task, and 

by defining what is covered, we are also defining what is not covered because though that which is not included is by nature of senVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:05 Mar 19, 2008 Jkt 037365 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37365.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
15

tence structure, it is excluded. So our counsel would be to be as 

flexible as possible to make it possible for the parties to revisit the 

issue as circumstances arise and not put themselves in concrete as 

to what is covered under the clause. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Thank you, sir. President Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Senator Carper, my union played a significant role 

in this. We were asked by you and Senator Collins to meet with 

a group of mailers and we were the ones that actually hammered 

out ‘‘unusual and exceptional’’ or whatever it is now, I forget. I 

apologize for that, because I don’t have the bill in front of me. 

But I totally agree with the remarks that the two presidents 

made before. The idea was that things that are not under control 

of the Postal Service should not be held against them when they 

are not reflected adequately in the Consumer Price Index. A lot of 

things are in the Consumer Price Index, as you well know, but 

there are other things that are not in the Consumer Price Index 

and we think that when things are exceptional, extraordinary, outside of that norm, that they should be covered. 

So our guidance would be the same as the two previous speakers, 

that we believe that at this point, it is premature for the regulatory 

body to try to define what was intended by those words. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. President Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. What can I say? It has already been said. 

Senator CARPER. You could disagree with the other three. 

Mr. PITTS. I don’t disagree at all. 

[Laughter.] 

I think we just need to wait until circumstances justify exceeding 

the CPI Index, because I echo what John and Bill and the other 

Bill have said here. We don’t need to try to set standards right now 

that may not be applicable when the time comes. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. PITTS. So that would be my comment, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Thank you. All of you know better than 

anyone, I think, that the Postal Service has always had problems 

with workplace injuries. What has been done in recent years to address the problem? I think at least one of you alluded to that in 

your testimony. I found it very interesting. Are there still parts of 

the country or even individual Postal facilities that have serious injury problems? And finally, is the Postal Service working with your 

unions directly to address these problems? If you have already spoken to this, I would ask you to come back and revisit it. I think 

the comments that at least one of you made are worth repeating. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I didn’t make those comments. I think President Hegarty did. I will just tell you this, Senator. In the tentative 

agreement that we have reached, there is a joint commitment toward safety and health. We have been monitoring the number. I 

hate to tell you this, but it is mostly letter carriers that comprise 

it. More letter carriers than any other craft employees are injured. 

There has been tremendous improvement in the last 2 years, I 

mean, off-the-chart improvement in the area of injuries and it is a 

lessening of the number of injuries, and I believe it is because during the last 3, 4, 5 years, the parties have been working together 

to jointly address these issues. I think if we continue to do it, we 

16

will get there. I don’t promise overnight results, but I think, ultimately, we will get where you want us to be. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. President Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Yes, sir. We have involvement with the Volunteer Protection Program, VPP Program, that allows the employees to get 

involved and to expand safety and health programs to have involvement for them to have input when safety issues arise. 

Also, with the Postal Service and the Rural Letter Carriers, we 

have entered into a program that deals with safety on our delivery 

routes, looking for left-hand turns, U-turns, backing situations, 

high-speed areas where the carriers become targets out there, trying to eliminate a lot of those items to make it safer for employees 

out on the delivery routes. It is bad enough for one employee to 

lose their life during a year, but when you have 9 or 10 or 12 people losing their lives, any kind of safety program that you can get 

involved in, and the one we have been involved in takes a look at 

these areas and helps eliminate them. So that is some of the things 

that we are doing to try to make safety better. 

Senator CARPER. Good. President Hegarty, you spoke to this, but 

I want you to revisit it again. I found your comments especially interesting. 

Mr. HEGARTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. We participate 

also in the VPP, which is the Voluntary Protection Program. That 

is a partnership with OSHA, with the APWU and the Mail Handlers because we generally work together in the plants where that 

program is rolled out. It has been very successful. You have to 

qualify for the program. You have to demonstrate a good safety 

record, and then you identify within the facility potential causes of 

injuries and eliminate them. 

Similarly, the Ergonomic Risk Reduction Program, which we also 

partner with the APWU and the Postal Service, and we have dedicated headquarters personnel to roll this program out facility-by-facility around the country, identifying causes of repetitive motion injuries, musculoskeletal injuries, where people have to have operations for carpal tunnel and rotator cuff——

Senator CARPER. Did you say Carper tunnel? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HEGARTY. Close. That is in Delaware, isn’t it? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Actually, just a quick aside. We have a Gridiron 

Dinner here in Washington every year and they poke fun at the 

politicians and folks in the media and so forth. We also have, I call 

it a cheap imitation of the Gridiron Dinner in Delaware and one 

of the, really one of the funniest skits was on something called Carper Tunnel, and they were poking fun at me because I shake hands 

with everybody who has a hand in Delaware. 

Mr. HEGARTY. You are prone to it, then. 

Senator CARPER. I had a great time with that, so I apologize for 

interrupting you. 

Mr. HEGARTY. No, not at all. But that program, also, the Ergonomic Risk Reduction Program, works great, and some of the solutions are as simple as raising the height of a conveyor belt six 

inches, or putting fatigue mats down so that people who are standVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:05 Mar 19, 2008 Jkt 037365 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37365.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
17

ing all day don’t develop joint pain and injury such as that, and 

that has been very successful, as well. 

We also have safety and health committees at the local level, the 

regional level, and the national level. Those have been successful 

over the years. In fact, over the last couple of rounds of collective 

bargaining, we have improved our safety and health article in our 

contract, which is Article 14. 

One thing that President Pitts said that I think is very important to point out is that both of these programs are employee ownership programs. The employees, the union representatives, have a 

big say in what goes on, and in fact, in some instances, are the 

chairpersons of the committees. So the buy-in from the employees 

on the working floor is much better. 

You asked if parts of the country or certain Postal plants had 

problems. I would say you are always going to have problems in 

some Postal plants, whether that is due to the age of the plant. We 

have some of the older plants, such as the one in Maine that was 

just replaced. It was a four-story building that was probably built 

in 1920, elevators transporting mail long distances where it really 

should not have been done. They now have a new processing plant 

in Scarborough. I would say that that has been alleviated. 

But what we do is if we find a particular plant that is having 

problems, our union officials will bring it to our attention, will try 

to get it some immediate attention and not just wait for the system 

to work. As far as statistics, I think you would have to ask the 

Postal Service if there were specific areas of the country or plants 

that have higher-than-normal injury rates. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much for those comments. 

President Burrus, a last word on this point? 

Mr. BURRUS. Yes. Despite our disagreements with the Postal 

Service on a number of issues, major disagreements, safety and 

health is one of our success stories. We have worked together cooperatively. We have brought injuries down. We have in place a number of programs, joint programs, where we are addressing in a serious way injuries to employees. I think the Postal Service and its 

unions have a joint philosophy, one injury is too many, and we are 

working towards that objective. 

Senator CARPER. That is a great philosophy to have. I think you 

are right, President Burrus. This is a success story. I don’t know 

how broadly it has been told, but this is one that you can feel good 

about and your members can feel good about and I think the management at the Postal Service ought to feel proud of, and frankly, 

we in this body salute you for the great progress that you have 

made. 

Let me turn, if I can, to another issue. There have been reports, 

I guess in just recent months, of some serious service problems 

across the country. Some of the communities, I will mention. They 

include Chicago. I think L.A. has seen maybe the worst of it. But 

my staff and I have heard anecdotal stories from Delaware about 

mail going to its destination a lot later than it really ought to be, 

for example. 

Let me just ask, what do you think is going on out there? Have 

we reached a point where the Postal Service’s efforts to cut costs 

might be having a negative impact? 

18

Mr. YOUNG. I would be happy to go first on that one. Absolutely, 

Senator. It is exactly what you just said, and I think is some acknowledgement starting to come out now from the Postal Service 

itself. I was at the hearings at the House when Mr. Potter was 

asked about the Chicago problems. He said some maverick postmaster decided not to hire a bunch of people that he needed and 

he was going to put 200, I think is the number he said, 200 new 

letter carriers into Chicago right away to alleviate the problems. 

Senator CARPER. For what purpose was that decision made by 

the local postmaster? 

Mr. YOUNG. I am not even sure that is accurate. That is just 

what Mr. Potter said. He said that the guy had made it. I don’t 

know why a postmaster would make that decision. It doesn’t make 

sense. This next panel is a group that represents them and they 

can probably explain the ins and outs of this process to you. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. YOUNG. But make no mistake about it. They have cut thousands and thousands of jobs in the last 3 or 4 years from the Postal 

Service, I think over 100,000 total from all of us, and it has an effect. If you go too far, you compromise service. I have watched this 

happen, Senator, the 42 years I have been in the Post Office, 

maybe four or five times. It is like a cycle. When the finances get 

bad, the first thing they do is go after labor because a lot of the 

cost is labor, and I don’t dispute that. I don’t agree with their 80 

percent, but we won’t go there. Whatever the cost is, a significant 

part is our wages. So the first part they cut is our wages. That 

works up to a point, and then at the point, it starts to be counterproductive and service deteriorates. 

I was in a meeting with the Board of Governors and I was very 

proud of the four representatives from the management associations because they sounded like the union in there, complaining to 

the Board of Governors that they had went too far with these cuts 

and that these significant service problems were going to occur. In 

my opinion, they just weren’t listened to and now it has got to be 

fixed. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Thank you. Others, please. President 

Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Yes. I just had an opportunity to visit the great State 

of New Mexico and was talking with a district manager out there 

who was having problems with getting the mail processed in the 

mail processing centers, and I know Mr. Hegarty probably has a 

better idea of that, and Mr. Burrus. But their concern was the 

staffing. It has been cut back to a bare minimum. They don’t have 

the workers to get the mail delivered. We see it even in my craft 

where they have cut back on local managers, even using our employees, the rural carriers, in higher-level assignments, which puts 

a problematic area on us for having someone to cover the routes, 

and even going as far as to, in the highway contracting, requiring 

our leave replacements, the Rural Carrier Associates, to carry contract delivery routes. 

So they are cutting back, and I think a lot of it is because of the 

pay-for-performance. There is an incentive there for the manager 

to cut all the costs he can, but if you cut it too far, you get into 

19

problems, and that is exactly what has happened in some of these 

situations. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. President Burrus, would you 

comment on this, as well, please? 

Mr. BURRUS. Yes. The Postal Service is adopting many of the tactics of the private sector of cutting service. If someone loses their 

luggage on an airline, the call to India will take weeks on end to 

recover. If you go into a bank today at lunchtime, you are going to 

wait an extraordinary amount of time, or the supermarket. Service 

in the private sector often is less than satisfactory, and the Postal 

Service has adopted a business model that mirrors what they see 

in the private sector. They think they can be more profitable if they 

reduce their employee costs, even though we are a service organization. 

And added to the inconvenience it causes to the American public, 

when you incentivize the managers to cut, then you are going to 

find when their bonus is affected by how much, how many hours 

that they cut out of their workload, then it is going to have a residual effort, sort of residual impact upon the service we provide to 

the public. So this has become the new part of the Postal business 

model of reducing cost through cutting of service, and they can’t 

cut it anywhere else. We are a service organization, so if they are 

going to cut, they are going to cut service. 

I think the rate cap for rates is going to feed into future cuts. 

I think there is going to be a cycle. As the Postal Service has a 

need to reduce their costs to save money, the place where they are 

going to look to save that money is in service to the American public. That means fewer employees, less service to the public. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Thank you. President Hegarty, the last 

word? 

Mr. HEGARTY. Yes. We had a meeting with the Postmaster General probably about 6 weeks ago on a variety of issues and this 

topic came up, and I asked Postmaster General Potter, I said, what 

do you have in place or do you have something in place to prevent 

another Chicago from happening? Rather than be reactive, can you 

be proactive with it? And he said that they did. He said that they 

were working on that nationwide to make sure it doesn’t happen 

again. So I guess I will leave that to your Subcommittee to find out 

from the Postal Service what they are doing. We haven’t had a follow-up meeting on that yet. 

But I can tell you from experience, traveling the country, visiting 

the mail processing facilities, that it is a problem in some facilities, 

in management in those facilities. I agree with the other union 

presidents that it comes down to budget. It comes down to cost cutting. It comes down to: If I can make a pay-for-performance bonus 

by keeping my costs below a certain dollar amount, then I just 

won’t hire those 10 mail handlers that I know I really need or 

those 10 letter carriers that I know I really need. 

Now, in a big facility like where I am from in Springfield, we 

have in the neighborhood of a thousand mail handlers, so can you 

get the job done with 995 mail handlers? You probably can. Can 

you get the job done with 900? I don’t think so. So it is a balancing 

act. The Postal Service has to look at staffing and should be staffing to the needs of the service within the particular facilities. 

20

Senator CARPER. Alright. Thank you. Thanks for sharing that insight, too. 

Before we bring on our second panel, I want to spend a few more 

minutes and let me just delve into contracting out. Before I say 

that, though, I want to just say a word about service. If you ask 

most people in this country how they feel about the quality of the 

service that they receive, it could be from the private sector, it 

could be from the public sector, I think you will find that among 

the entities that they feel best about in terms of service are the 

Postal Service. You have heard those numbers, and I have, too. 

They make me proud and I am sure they make you and your colleagues proud, as well. 

Having said that, almost every day, we get in the mail at our 

home an offer for a different credit card, and if we don’t like the 

kind of service that they provide—most of them are from Delaware, 

but if don’t like the service that we are getting from our credit card 

company, we can try somebody else. Maybe not every day, but 

every week or two, we get something in the mail from the folks 

that provide cable service or different companies that provide cellular service. We get something in the mail at least every month, 

usually more often, from folks who build cars, trucks, and vans and 

they want us to take advantage of the automotive service that they 

provide for us. 

I think there is a lot of interest in the private sector to provide 

good service and there is a fair amount of competition. For those 

companies that provide good service, they get rewarded with more 

customers. Those that don’t, they get rewarded, too. 

The Postal Service, as time goes by, is operating in more of a 

competitive environment than was the case before. It is no longer 

a public entity as it was for many decades, years, hundreds of 

years. Today, it is sort of a quasi-public-private sector animal and 

you have competition and your competitive products that the Postal 

Service offers have competition with the likes of UPS and FedEx 

and others, as well. You have got to be good in order to retain the 

market and to be competitive going forward. 

I am just real encouraged by what I have seen. I have been in 

the Senate now for about 61⁄2 years. I have been on this Subcommittee for 61⁄2 years and the spirit of cooperation that you have 

seen demonstrated here today with respect to reducing injuries, 

making the workplace safer. It is good for the folks you represent. 

It is, frankly, good for us as mailers because it brings down our 

costs and enables them to get better service. 

I am encouraged by the fact that the Letter Carriers are able to 

actually hammer something out at the bargaining table, a new contract, and to address, at least for now, the issue of contracting out. 

With that, I just want to sort of shift to the issue of contracting 

out and then will thank you for being here, but I want you to take 

some time to talk with me about it a bit more. I know you already 

have in your statements. 

I am going to ask you just to start, if I could, with President 

Young. You spoke to this in your testimony, but I want you to come 

back and just revisit it for us, the process, the discussion that you 

were a part of. My understanding is that contracting out has been 

something that your union has bargained with the Postal Service 

21

for a number of years, maybe even since 1972. We have been asked 

by you again today to consider a legislative fix offered by Senator 

Harkin which would essentially ban any, as I understand it, any 

contracting out, at least for new routes, maybe even for existing 

ones. But this is an issue that historically, I think, has been dealt 

with at the bargaining table by your union, not by all, but certainly 

by yours. Would you just talk with us a little bit about how did you 

end up finally being able to reach agreement at the bargaining 

table? 

I guess I will just close with this. I have said to Senator Harkin, 

I thought that his legislation was helpful. I thought it had a salutary effect——

Mr. YOUNG. Well, it clearly was. 

Senator CARPER [continued]. Because what it did is it provided 

a real impetus to the Postal Service to negotiate. Up until that 

point, I don’t know that the Postmaster General felt that he could, 

was empowered to, and I think it helped to free him up to do that. 

Mr. YOUNG. No question about it. First of all, I do this at some 

risk, Senator, but I want to correct something you said. We haven’t 

bargained——

Senator CARPER. My wife does that every day. 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. 

Senator CARPER. Sometimes every hour. Why shouldn’t you? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Alright. Well, I am reluctant because of the distinguished position that you hold, but we have not bargained with the 

Postal Service since 1973 over contracting out. What occurred in 

1972 is a provision—Article 32—was entered into the agreement, 

which at the time covers all four unions. That allows the Postal 

Service to contract out certain activities, and that was part of the 

give-and-take. We do not have the right to strike, but binding arbitration. They got the contracting out provision in 1972. Up until 

the time that Senator Harkin introduced a bill and the 282 Resolution started moving over in the House, the position of the Postal 

Service was, we are not interested and we don’t bargain over Article 32. That is ours. We don’t bargain over it. 

It was only when the Postal Service believed that there was a legitimate threat that legislation was going to be passed did things 

change, and they changed in a New York second, or let me put it 

more distinctly, in a Delaware second——

Senator CARPER. That is pretty fast. 

Mr. YOUNG [continuing]. Because I think you were the major 

mover of this, and I say that not facetiously. I mean, it is just the 

truth. I don’t think my colleagues got the same chance to negotiate 

on contracting out that I did just because I happened to be in the 

right place at the right time, and largely due to your efforts. 

Here is the point, Senator, and I just want to take one more second, if I could, to try to define this for you because I am not sure 

we are all on the same page yet. If you are talking about existing 

city letter carrier routes or territory that has been assigned 

through a boundary agreement between the Postal Service and our 

union, I have always had the right to bargain for that. You should 

not go there. That is a collective bargaining issue. I agree with 

what President Burrus said to that narrow extent. 

22

1The prepared statement of from John V. ‘‘Skip’’ Maraney, Executive Director of The National 

Star route Mail Contractors Association with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 76. 

But if you are going to talk about a program that involves workers who don’t have a union, first of all, I think that is against the 

Postal reform law. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but in that reform 

law, it says the Postal employees will have bargaining rights. Who 

is bargaining for the private contractors of America? The answer 

is no one. They don’t have anybody to try to get them health benefits, retirement benefits, annual leave, sick leave, or any of the 

other benefits that we have. I think the current state of Postal reform law requires certain health benefits and certain retirement 

provisions. These folks don’t get any of that. There is no one there 

that speaks for them. 

Because of you guys’ influence, I have got a chance. That is all 

I have got. It is not a done deal, I am telling you. I am going to 

meet with them. Hopefully, my friends from the rural carriers will 

find their way in there. They have been offered the opportunity. 

That is their decision. I don’t speak for them. But we are going to 

try to address it, and here is what we hope to accomplish, Senator 

Carper. We hope that we can come up with some criteria that 

makes sense. 

Now, let me say this. It pains me to say it, but I am going to 

be truthful because I am required to be truthful at these hearings. 

In a pure sense, I wish there was no contracting out, but I am a 

realist. I live in the real world. I supported the Postal Service’s 

right to contract out the air transport of the mail through FedEx. 

I supported that. I thought it would help the institution. I thought 

it was the right thing to do. We have never grieved what we call 

HCR routes, the Highway Contract Routes, and here is where I 

want to be very careful that I make this distinction again. 

People that drive 50, 60, 70, 80 big sacks that would stand up 

from the ground this tall that are locked up full of mail from one 

Postal installation to another and maybe deliver three or four individual deliveries in these real isolated areas that Mr. Pitts is talking about, where there is not a box for every mile, they don’t require the same level of trust, the same level of professionalism as 

the members I represent. That, to me, is not synonymous with 

somebody picking up 500 letters addressed to Senator Carper and 

going through them individually to make sure that they are yours 

and that everything is right with them. That takes a different level 

of trust. 

We never grieved and we are not trying to stop HCRS, and I told 

the lobbyist who is here today from the Star Routes, our union is 

not trying to eliminate Star Routes.1 And here is the second point 

I have to disagree with you. I do not believe Senator Harkin’s bill 

does that. I think he grandfathers in all of the existing Highway 

Contract Routes. 

But now let me end it by saying this. Here is the public policy 

issue that I honest to God believe you have to decide, and I mean 

you, the Congress. Are you okay with the Postal Service giving deliveries, the final delivery of mail to communities, to private contractors side by side with career employees? So if your house was 

built in 1990, you are going to have a mailbox on your porch and 

23

a career letter carrier is going to come to your porch and deliver 

the mail. But if your house wasn’t built until 2008, you are going 

to have a neighborhood mailbox located two blocks away from your 

house and some private contractor that you never see or never 

know is going to deliver your mail. 

And all I am suggesting to you is this, that when the public finds 

this out, they are outraged. They don’t want these private contractors doing the final delivery of their mail. We built up over a long 

period of time their trust and they don’t want it. I think it was 

Congresswoman Norton-Holmes said, you can’t have my mailman. 

And honest to God, I think she expresses the heartfelt opinion of 

most American people. They want the career letter carrier to deliver their mail. 

Again, let me say it. This is not a battle over whether there are 

going to be city letter carriers or private contractors. This is a battle over whether there are going to be rural carriers or private contractors because the majority of the new deliveries go to rural carriers because their costs are less than ours, and I know that. I 

don’t like it, but it is what it is and that is what happens. 

So I know there is nothing in this for me. The only thing in this 

for me is this: 42 years, I have worked in this Postal Service. I 

have developed all kinds of friends. I know all kinds of people and 

their families that rely on a Postal Service for their future and I 

am worried if they go too far with the delivery of private contractors, the American public will lose trust in the mail, and if they do 

that, there are a lot of alternatives, as you know, out there that 

they can use, and that is what I think they risk in this effort to 

reduce the cost by using the private contractors. 

So I think in 6 months, after this Subcommittee does its work, 

we will be in a great position to give you all the evidence, something that we haven’t had for you because we are not the owners 

of that evidence. It is not in our possession. This agreement requires the Postal Service to turn over everything to us. We can 

have hearings. We can call members of the public there to tell us 

what their views are. And we will give that information to you. In 

the best of all worlds, I will end up with an agreement that makes 

sense for everybody and I will never have to come back here. But 

if I don’t, I am going to come back and I am going to say, now we 

have to have these 1,547 because we can’t get where we need to 

be if you want career letter carriers delivering the mail. Thank 

you, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. I am sorry I took so long. 

Senator CARPER. No, that is quite Alright. Thank you very much. 

Let me hear from others on this, please. President Pitts, I will 

just ask a more specific question. President Young mentioned that 

what we have, I don’t want to misstate what he said, but I think 

President Young said what we have here is a chance or the opportunity to try to work something out. What did you say? What were 

your words, do you recall? 

Mr. YOUNG. I say, we have got a 6-month opportunity to try to 

work out guidelines that we can all agree to that make sense for 

the American public, the workers, and the Postal Service. If we can 

do that, that will be——

24

Senator CARPER. And then you said it was up to President Pitts 

and the folks he represents to decide whether or not they wanted 

to——

Mr. YOUNG. Well, yes, because I don’t represent them. There is 

one sentence in our agreement that says, if the rural union decides 

they want to be part of this task force, we welcome that. 

Senator CARPER. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. And I would just ask President Pitts, is that 

something you would have an interest in doing? 

Mr. PITTS. Yes, sir. I most definitely would have an interest in 

doing that, and let me clear up one thing. 

Senator CARPER. Please. 

Mr. PITTS. One reason we didn’t bring Article 32 to the table in 

the contract negotiations is because I feel we have got a little 

stronger language in Article 32 that protects us better than my 

counterpart on my left side here, Mr. Young, because the Postal 

Service, if they are going to step up contracting out, they should 

give us notification of their intent to increase the contracting out. 

And also, there is a provision in our Article 32 that says that they 

have to let us know of any policy changes. 

None of that happened. None of this came about as a result of 

contract negotiations. It wasn’t mentioned, because we didn’t feel 

we had a problem with it. And over the years, we have seen 

through testimony from Jack Potter back in April before the House, 

he made a statement that Contract Delivery had averaged about 2 

percent per year, which we know, like Mr. Young said, Contract 

Delivery Services have been here. It will be here in the future. 

But what concerns us is the fact in that same statement he said 

for the purpose of Contract Delivery Services it only came about as 

a result of Postal reform being passed, and that isn’t correct. And 

he also in the same statement said it is 2 percent over the past few 

years on Contract Delivery Services. It has now for the year 2006, 

increased from 2 percent to 6 percent, which tells me it is a 4 percent increase. And just last week in another hearing, now I am 

hearing from one of the Board of Governors representatives that 92 

percent of all new deliveries are going on either Bill Young’s routes 

or the NRLCA routes, which tells me there is 8 percent now unaccounted for. 

So the numbers continue to escalate, and basically, we are trying 

to protect our craft. We are the growingest craft in the Postal Service and we do pick up about 1.2 out of 1.8 million new deliveries 

each year. And I am here to tell you, in doing comparisons from 

this same pay period this year to the same pay period last year, 

we have had a decline of about 258,000 boxes. This time last year, 

we were over a million new deliveries. This year, we are at 750-

some-odd-thousand deliveries. 

So something is going on here. It is not something I am just 

thinking about. It is happening out there. So we do have concerns. 

We have filed a national level grievance, a step forward because 

they, we feel, have violated our contract. But we also feel it is a 

policy issue because they are changing their policy and not trying 

to negotiate anything through our contract when we already have 

language. So that is my big concern. 

25

Senator CARPER. Okay. Thank you. President Hegarty. 

Mr. HEGARTY. Well, I would just like to say that we have an Article 32, as well. It is the subcontracting article. I am not here asking you to rewrite that article or to renegotiate that article with 

the Postal Service. But what I would say is just because they can 

contract out doesn’t mean they should contract out, and at some 

point, it becomes a public policy issue. There is a fine line between 

collective bargaining and public policy. 

We did not come to Congress when they subcontracted the 

Emery Priority Mail Centers. We didn’t come to Congress when 

they subcontracted empty equipment processing. Those are things 

that we handled in the collective bargaining process. I think history proved us correct, certainly on the Emery one and also audits 

were conducted that showed that the Postal Service was not saving 

the type of money they wanted—they said they were going to save. 

But when you start contracting airport mail, where mail handlers, entrusted Postal employees, other Postal employees who 

have background checks and career jobs are sorting mail for loading onto airlines for transportation around the country, when you 

subcontract military mail that is going to our troops over in Iraq 

and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, that is where I think 

it becomes a public policy issue, especially in the world we live in 

today. Since 2001, things have changed. Since the anthrax attacks, 

since September 11, 2001, it is a different world we live in. It is 

a different Postal Service, and I think that needs to be recognized. 

So I would say that career Postal employees should be handling 

the core Postal functions, not driving a truck from Point A to Point 

B or flying the airplane that the mail is being transported in, but 

certainly the sorting individual pieces of mail and people having access to the mail, whether it is problems with identity theft, terrorism, whatever you want to call it, I think career Postal employees should be handling that mail. 

Senator CARPER. Alright, thank you. President Burrus, the last 

word, please. 

Mr. BURRUS. Yes. My union’s solution is to give us the opportunity and the right to bargain. I think these issues can be resolved 

at the bargaining table. It takes more than just a general opportunity and right to engage in collective bargaining, but a decision 

by Congress requiring the Postal Service to bargain on subcontracting, not within the framework of collective bargaining, but 

bargaining over subcontracting. 

And without that right, you will find in the ensuing years we will 

return to Congress repeatedly as each of our bargaining units is affected by specific pieces of contracting. Each of the previous speakers spoke regarding the subcontracting that affected their environment. The Postal Service has a very large environment. It involves 

transportation, maintenance, retail services, delivery, processing, 

and all of us are affected by one or more of those. And unless we 

have the right to bargaining on each occasion that it occurs, we will 

inevitably come back before Congress to bail us out. 

We will call it public policy, we will call it collective bargaining, 

we will use whatever words are convenient at the time, but we will 

be seeking out for assistance, and I say you can avoid that. Give 

26

us the right to bargaining on each and every occasion and we will 

take care of it ourselves. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. That is a good note on which to conclude. 

This has been, for me, just a most helpful, interesting, and valuable panel and I want to thank each of you for your preparation 

for today’s hearing, for your presentations and particularly for your 

responses to the questions that have been raised. We appreciate 

the opportunity to work with you and your colleagues in recent 

years as we try to bring the Postal Service into the 21st Century. 

We couldn’t have done it without you, and I realize it is not perfect 

and I always like to say, if it isn’t perfect, make it better. We are 

still going to try to make it better. But thank you very much for 

being with us today and for the leadership that you provide. Thank 

you. 

Gentlemen, welcome. We are happy that you are here. 

Mr. Atkins, there is some disagreement. Do you pronounce your 

first name ‘‘Louis’’ or ‘‘Louie’’? 

Mr. ATKINS. Both ways, Senator, whatever you feel like calling 

me. 

Senator CARPER. If your middle name was Louis, we could call 

you ‘‘Louie, Louie,’’ but we won’t. 

Mr. ATKINS. The famous song. 

Senator CARPER. There you go. 

Mr. ATKINS. I need royalties off it. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just take a moment and introduce you 

first, and then I will turn to introducing Dale Goff and I will ask 

you both to proceed. 

Mr. Atkins is the Executive Vice President of the National Association of Postal Supervisors. He took over that position in January 

2005 after previously serving as Secretary-Treasurer and a number 

of other leadership positions in the Gulf Coast region. His Postal 

career began in 1970. He has been a member of the National Association of Postal Supervisors for 30 years, is that correct? 

Mr. ATKINS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Dale Goff is President of the National 

Association of Postmasters of the United States. He has also had 

a long career at the Postal Service. He has been a Postmaster for 

how many years, 27 years? 

Mr. GOFF. Twenty-seven years. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. Twenty-seven years, and has 

served in a number of leadership positions with the Association. He 

was even named, is it true, Postmaster of the Year in 1994? 

Mr. GOFF. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Can you be Postmaster of the Year 

more than once, or just once? 

Mr. GOFF. Just once, I think, is all they said they could do for 

me. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Well, congratulations. 

My notes here indicate that the President of the National League 

of Postmasters was planning to be here today, but he was not able 

to come. I think what he has done is he has sent his written testiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:05 Mar 19, 2008 Jkt 037365 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37365.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
27

1The prepared statement of Mr. Mapa appears in the Appendix on page 69. 

2The prepared statement of Mr. Atkins appears in the Appendix on page 57. 

mony, and without any objection, we are going to place that in the 

record.1

Senator CARPER. OK. The bells are going off here. We have lights 

going on on our clock. I think we can go ahead. We are going to 

proceed at least for now. 

Mr. Atkins, your entire statement will be entered into the record. 

Feel free to summarize, and if you keep it pretty close to 5 minutes, we would appreciate it. If you go a little bit over, that is okay, 

too. Thank you. You are recognized at this time. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS ATKINS,2 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS 

Mr. ATKINS. Chairman Carper and other arriving Members 

maybe later on of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this 

hearing today and for the opportunity to appear on behalf of 35,000 

Postal supervisors, managers, and postmasters who belong to the 

National Association of Postal Supervisors. Throughout the 99-year 

history as a management association, NAPS has sought to improve 

the operation of the Postal Service and the compensation and working conditions of our members. Many of our members are involved 

in management and supervising the mail processing and delivery 

operations. We also represent the interests of men and women engaged in every function in the Postal Service. 

Indeed, the Postal Service stands at the beginning of a new era. 

The new law crafted on the basis of principle and compromise presents opportunity and challenges to the Postal Service, opportunity 

in the sense of greater flexibility within the Postal Service to design and price its products, services, and challenges because of the 

heightened competition the Postal Service faces in an increasing 

wide world. 

The Postal Service stands unique as a time-tested public institution, while at the same time operating like a business without the 

taxpayers’ funds. Now the creation of a new pricing framework 

under the reform law, a price cap limiting increases to no more 

than the rate of inflation will require the Postal Service to be more 

creative and focused than ever in growing new business and expanding revenues. At the same time, the price cap framework will 

place new demands upon the Postal Service to become smarter in 

how and where it spends its funds and services for its customers. 

These demands will extend from the front-line counter to the back 

offices, from post office to plants, from Maine to Alaska. 

The Postmaster General, his leadership team, and the Postal 

workforce has done an excellent job over the past 6 years in increasing productivity, reducing costs, and focusing attention on 

mail that is the core business of the Postal Service. Two transformation plans promoted by GAO and mandated by Congress have 

paved the way for policies and operational changes that have permitted the Postal Service since 2001 to serve an additional 12 million delivery points with a dedicated workforce that is approximately 10 percent smaller than it was in 1999. 

28

For a successful Fortune 500 company, the dynamics of growing 

and reshaping its business and operation goes with the terrain. Innovation, agility, and speed are the ingredients of business success, 

especially in the service sector. For the Postal Service, the will to 

innovate, accelerate, and compete for success has not come as easy. 

Historically, America’s indispensible reliance on the mail, the comfort of a quasi-monopoly, and the size of the USPS bureaucracy 

have spawned a culture more resistant to change, to survive, and 

thrive. However, especially under the new law, the Postal Service 

will need to change faster and smarter, undergoing a greater transformation of its people and operations than ever before. 

What does this mean for the Postal Service managers and supervisors? Undoubtedly, financial pressures, especially to remain within the price cap, will place new demands on managers and supervisors to continue to reduce costs, yet continue to deliver universal 

service at the same level of quality. We have already seen the financial pressures play out within the current policy debate over 

contracting out of delivery service. Unacceptable service levels in 

Chicago also have demonstrated what happens when service quality is allowed to deteriorate. The big structural change within the 

Postal Service is yet to come, involving the potential mass alignment and consolidation of processing plants and post offices, along 

with Postal transportation network. 

The increasing insistence to do more with less, to maintain and 

exceed expectations with fewer resources, to cut costs, all are placing unprecedented demands upon the managers and supervisors, 

demands that are not healthy, either in the long run for the Postal 

Service and for our customers, on the vitality and loyalty of its employees. 

When performance goals are arbitrarily set, staffing needs go 

unmet, demands increase to make your numbers, all within a 

context of pay-for-performance, the conduct of managers and supervisors is likely to be skewed in perverse ways, getting some supervisors into trouble through clock falsification and other unacceptable behavior. This is not a path toward progress. All of us within 

the Postal Service, corporate executives, mid-level managers, and 

front-line supervisors, need to be increasingly sensitive to avoid the 

creation of expectations and insensitivity that brings about these 

kinds of negative outcomes. 

The broader solution to success within the Postal Service will 

apply upon realistic, jointly arrived at goals, and may I add again, 

I will say it again, jointly arrived at goal setting, better communication at all levels, less paperwork, training and genuine support 

of problem solving, and greater teamwork at all levels. These are 

the building blocks of an organization whose business success will 

rely upon sharp-edged focus on the bottom line merged with a realistic sense about what is possible today and what we need to work 

together to achieve tomorrow. These things cannot be legislated. 

They can come about only through the desire and determination of 

the Postal Service employees at all levels to work together in ways 

that reflect courtesy, dignity, and respect, joined together for a 

common purpose, that is, the timely and affordable delivery service 

to all Americans. 

29

1The prepared statement of Mr. Goff appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

In that same sense, as the new law becomes implemented and 

as the Postal Service and Postal Regulatory Commission undertakes their responsibility, Congress may find it necessary to retool 

the reform law in remedial ways, recognizing that a statute as 

sweeping and comprehensive as the Postal reform law is never 

quite perfect. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to 

continuing to work with you and the Congress in making the Postal Service stronger than ever. 

I will be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time 

that you or any other Members of the Subcommittee may have to 

ask. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you for that statement and we 

look forward to asking some questions. Thanks. 

President Goff, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF DALE GOFF,1 PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF POSTMASTERS OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. GOFF. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Coburn, and distinguished Subcommittee Members, I am Dale Goff, President of the 

40,500-member National Association of Postmasters of the United 

States, commonly known as NAPUS. I have been a Postmaster for 

27 years and in the Postal Service for 37 years. As Postmaster of 

Covington, Louisiana, I understand the challenges and opportunities that the new law presents to the U.S. Postal Service. I also recognize the benefits that my customers will reap from the new law 

as the Postal Service meets the new challenges and exploits the opportunities presented to it. 

We understand that the Postal Reform Act is still not a finished 

product. Congress did not intend it to be so. Congress charged Postal managers, craft employees, the Postal Regulatory Commission, 

Postal stakeholders, and the Postal Service itself to complete and 

perfect the legislative project. Implementation is the key to success. 

Indeed, the Postal community needs to put the finishing touches on 

the legislation. Therefore, postmasters are working with the Postal 

community to help guarantee the lasting triumph of Postal reform. 

I have faith that implementing the new law will not be as 

daunting as passing it. Presently, postmasters are discussing with 

Postal headquarters, the PRC, and others strategies on how to ensure the new Postal paradigm enhances this Postal system. We 

should recall that this is not the first time the Postal world has 

been apprehensive about legislation. In the 1970s, there was anxiety about the creation of the Postal Rate Commission and the establishment of a self-sufficient Federal entity that was mandated 

to break even. We succeeded then and we will succeed now, because we believe that the new law affords the Postal Service with 

new tools to maintain its high standards. 

Presently, NAPUS is working to educate managers in charge of 

the approximately 26,000 post offices about the fresh approach necessary under P.L. 105–435. Postmasters have new responsibilities 

under the Act. Obviously, education and training are necessary. 

Therefore, it is important for NAPUS, in conjunction with the 

Postal Service—and I will repeat that, in conjunction with the 

30

Postal Service—to develop an appropriate instructional program 

and to effectively and clearly communicate the new processes and 

expectations to front-line Postal managers. Postmasters and the 

Postal Service are accustomed to a long lead time between filing a 

rate case and the implementation of new rates. The new law authorizes periodic, predictable rate adjustments. It will be incumbent that the Postal Service anticipates these adjustments. The 

Postal Service will have to download new rate data into retail Postal facility pricing software. 

At the same time, Congress and the PRC need to recognize that 

there may be a time or times in which the Postal Service may be 

forced to file a much reviled exigent rate case. Postmasters understand that they are no longer working with a break-even Postal 

model. However, in order for this new business model to operate, 

postmasters must be allowed to make operational decisions without 

micromanagement from above, and with the staff they need. 

Indeed, the Postal Reform Act presents postmasters with the 

prospect of promoting new Postal products to their customers and 

being able to market competitive Postal products. The future of the 

Postal Service may very well depend on how well we are able to 

expand our product line, both in the market and in the competitive 

domain. 

Currently, the Postal Service earns 90 percent of its revenue 

from market-dominant products. These are the items that will be 

indexed to inflation. Postmasters are cognizant of the challenge imposed in operating under a price index system. Employee productivity, creative management, and committed teamwork will afford 

us the opportunity to use these factors to operate under the new 

rate system. 

We have witnessed the erosion of First-Class Mail, which used 

to represent the preponderance of mail volume. We have inherited 

a Postal culture that relies on volume mailings, not necessarily 

value mailings. It will be important that the Postal Service and the 

Postal Regulatory Commission work together to create appropriate 

incentives to encourage mailers to emphasize value in their mail 

program rather than simply generate volume. Certainly, the advent 

of Intelligent Mail creates that ‘‘eureka’’ opportunity for the Postal 

Service. 

Finally, the Postal Service’s success with competitive products 

will depend on whether the agency can operate in a truly competitive fashion. The Postal Service needs sufficient breathing space to 

bring new, as well as time-tested competitive products to the marketplace. The Postal Service will need to increase the competitive 

product generated revenue beyond the current 10 percent. As this 

growth occurs, postmasters will need to sharpen their skills and 

have the assets to be an aggressive sales force. 

Mr. Chairman, for implementation of this new law to be successful, the Postal Service must be true to its historical mission, universal, affordable, and accessible service. Moreover, it is equally 

true that Postal Service, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and 

Postal customers must be willing to invest in the infrastructure 

and the personnel that will be needed to support the new Postal 

business model. 

Thank you, and I will be glad to entertain questions. 

31

Senator CARPER. Good. President Goff, thanks so much. Thank 

you both for excellent statements. 

What I would like to do is start, if I could, President Goff, with 

you. Just to follow up, near the end of your testimony, you were 

talking about how 90 percent of the revenues of the Postal Service 

come from products which we will call market-dominant products 

and the need to grow the revenue stream from those that are competitive products. You mentioned something called Intelligent Mail. 

When President Bill Young was here from the Letter Carriers, he 

mentioned something called Customer Connect. Could you just tell 

us a little bit more about Intelligent Mail? What is it? What may 

be helpful for us to know? And how does that relate, if at all, to 

Customer Connect? 

Mr. GOFF. OK. Intelligent Mail is a process or a system that the 

Postal Service is developing right now. From what they are telling 

us and from different briefings we have had, it is going to be a way 

to track every piece of mail that is sent through the system. It is 

going to be an external measurement-type system of the mail. The 

mail will be bar-coded, as well as the pallets, and the mail encased 

with the shrink-wrap that comes in. Whatever is bar-coded it is delivered to a processing place or a post office, it will be scanned. As 

each piece of that mail goes through, all the way up until it is finally delivered, the mailers will be able to know where their mail 

pieces are at the time. 

I know in some of the tests conducted by the Postal Service, it 

has helped a lot of the mailers to correct their mailing list and 

know when mail was actually getting delivered. It addresses those 

things that you had said earlier about the, ‘‘please get my credit 

card so we can get the interest rate on you’’ or things like that. 

Mailers will know exactly when that piece of mail gets delivered 

from the day it is dropped at a post office, until it actually gets to 

someone’s home. 

Senator CARPER. And Customer Connect, how familiar are you 

with Customer Connect and can you shed some light on that? 

Mr. GOFF. Very familiar with it. One of the first Customer Connect success stories was out of Covington, Louisiana. We pulled in 

a customer that was going to spend almost $1 million with us sending supplies out for pets and medicines. We actually did a video 

with the Postal Service on the carrier that brought the business in 

to us. It is a very successful program. Obviously, the carrier, who 

else but the carrier, sees that one of our competitors pulls up to 

one of their customers every day. We can send somebody in there, 

or ask the carrier to ask that customer, ‘‘Hey, we have this type 

of service that we can give to you. How about I will send somebody 

out to talk to you?’’ It has been very successful and I look for it 

to be successful in the future, especially with the unions still agreeing to do it. 

Senator CARPER. What is the incentive for the carrier to help 

make this connection and to find the new business? 

Mr. GOFF. I know what we did in our office. I did something locally for the carrier that brought in the business. When you bring 

in a million dollars, you think that there would be some type of 

monetary award, which we did do in a small amount. But the inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:05 Mar 19, 2008 Jkt 037365 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37365.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
32

centive is that they are going to bring more business in and, again, 

keep our jobs for the future. 

Senator CARPER. Okay. I want to give both of you a chance just 

to think back over the last hour, hour and a half, where our first 

panel of witnesses was testifying and responding to questions. I 

don’t normally ask this, but I am going to ask you, do either of you 

have a comment that you would like to make on some aspect of the 

first panel, any of the discussion we had on our first panel? Does 

anything come to mind that you would like to just make a quick 

comment on, not at any length? 

Mr. ATKINS. Well, I can make one comment that comes to mind 

right away, is the deterioration of service that they referred to and 

cutback in staffing. All of that is semi. I think sometimes it is 

taken out of context, because overall, 95 percent of our volume of 

mail, First-Class overnight, is delivered on time. 

My major concern is that some managers are making some arbitrary decisions about staffing and because of their selfish need for 

pay-for-performance are making some good people do some bad 

things or developing some bad habits. But in conjunction with that, 

the accountability isn’t there when they do that. What happens to 

make headquarters aware of it? They have all the numbers that 

drive the complement in Chicago and there is a red alert that says 

that they are not hiring two carriers. Let me see or talk to the division or the district manager there and find out what is going on. 

That is the driving force, is that most of our district managers 

are very cognizant and they are very service-oriented and they are 

making the good decisions or we couldn’t have a 95 percent delivery count done by an external firm, EXFC. It would not be capable 

of getting those type of scores if they weren’t doing the right things 

throughout the country. But in Chicago and in New Mexico, there 

are some other driving forces. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. [Alarms going off.] You win the prize. 

Mr. ATKINS. I am the millionth customer. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. President Goff, while we find out for a moment 

what is going on here, any quick observation that relates to the discussion of the first panel? 

Mr. GOFF. There are many things that the previous panel talked 

about that I could discuss, that is for sure. People find it odd these 

days that management and unions will be in agreement on some 

of these issues. The biggest problem is, as Mr. Atkins just talked 

about is the service. Our major issue is the staffing in the field. I 

wish postmasters would have that authority to hire people. When 

I hear that a postmaster in Chicago had the authority to hire people and didn’t, I have a hard time believing that. We do not have 

that authority. It comes from somebody above us. We don’t have 

that authority. 

I know the contracting out issue. One of the statements that I 

made in one of my previous testimonies is, ‘‘You get what you pay 

for.’’ I still stand by that. Any time that you are going to take the 

service of a established delivery, I have a problem. How can we 

come in and just arbitrarily put some type of contract route in 

there. 

33

Senator CARPER. Alright. With that, I am going to ask us to just 

hold. We are evacuating the building. It has nothing to do with our 

hearing. We are not sure what it has to do with. But I am going 

to ask us to go ahead and adjourn the hearing at this time. 

We are going to provide questions for the record and we will ask 

you to respond as your schedules allow you, promptly. 

I apologize for this, but I am not sure when we are going to be 

able to come back into the building, so for now, we are going to adjourn. Thank you so much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(35)

A P P E N D I X 


37365.001
36


37365.002
37


37365.003
38


37365.004
39


37365.005
40


37365.006
41


37365.007
42


37365.008
43


37365.009
44


37365.010
45


37365.011
46


37365.012
47


37365.013
48


37365.014
49


37365.015
50


37365.016
51


37365.017
52


37365.018
53


37365.019
54


37365.020
55


37365.021
56


37365.022
57


37365.023
58


37365.024
59


37365.025
60


37365.026
61


37365.027
62


37365.028
63


37365.029
64


37365.030
65


37365.031
66


37365.032
67


37365.033
68


37365.034
69


37365.035
70


37365.036
71


37365.037
72


37365.038
73


37365.039
74


37365.040
75


37365.041
76


37365.042
77


37365.043
78


37365.044
79


37365.045
80


37365.046
81


37365.047
82


37365.048
83


37365.049
84


37365.050
85


37365.051
86


37365.052
87

Æ


37365.053