|
Home|
Postal News
|
Your Rights |
PostalMall |
Editorials |
Resources |
Links |
About |
What's New | Sitemap |
Search|
Letters to Editor
|
|
The "chit" or "marker" system
accounting for head scratching
anomalies
By Roland Petit
Philadelphia (PA) Local
The following is a look into what passes for a "soul"
of both organizations. It is essential for every member and worker to
understand. An understanding of this blows the covers off both
organizations and accounts for many otherwise "head scratching"
anomalies.
The "chit" or "marker" system makes the person granted the perk
personally beholding to the person granting the perk.
In the EAS world, by enabling discretion to the chit granter and not
relying on objective, 3rd party credentialing, promotion to EAS and
promotion within EAS ranks is a system of personal rather than
organizational, company allegiance. Reliance on the discretion of the
present managers to grant promotions, etc., removes allegiance of the
grantee (recipient) to the organization/company and establishes
allegiance between the grantee, receiver of the perk and the grantor of
the perk, the present manager. The EAS promotion system then becomes a
pseudo sponsor/patronage system rather than an objective process.
Likewise in the APWU world, by enabling discretion to the current
officers and office holders to fill positions and play the musical chairs
game, the APWU officers are personally beholden to the granter of the
chit. This discretionary process instills the power in the current
officer personally. It removes the power from the membership. The person
who receives the chit, office, grant, etc., is then personally beholden
to the granting officer and not to the membership for the office, etc.,
that he then holds.
A question is: why would someone continue to play the game if he is going
to retire? At that point, he has nothing left to gain from the system,
right? Is it only past chits and loyalty that influences the prospective
retiree's action? No. Even in retirement, the APWU chit system rules. If
the office holder abides by the chit system, surrenders his office to
allow the current chit granter above him to fill the newly vacated office
with a new chit recipient, then the prospective retiree will most likely
reap the benefits of receiving yet more chits during retirement. The
newly retired player will be assigned discretionary chits such as "arbs."
Such discretionary chit "arb" assignments can augment the retiree's
salary in retirement to substantially alter the retiree's lifestyle.
In both worlds the alignments are narrowed. The organization/company
goals are thwarted at the expense of the personal power of the EAS chit
granter. The democratic underpinnings of the union are undermined by the
APWU chit system. The APWU officer reaps the benefits at the expense of
the democratic rights of the members.
Both entities have strong personality cult aspects rather than having
corporate or organizational cultures. This is an embedded, systemic
problem that is not even seen as a problem at this point. It will not be
changing any time soon. In both worlds, personal allegiance is regarded
as more important than organizational goals or democratically based
membership concerns.
What would be required would be a radical, revolutionary revamping of the
EAS selection and promotion process to take it away from a pseudo
patronage/sponsor type crony elite hack selection system and make it an
objective, 3rd party credentialed system. The APWU musical chair system
would have to be ended by amending the charter. People who run for office
would be required to fulfill their promise and fulfill their terms. In
the case of unforeseen circumstances, special elections to fill vacancies
could be held or the next highest vote getter could be made interim
office holder. The routine abandonment of posts would have to be
eliminated.
Although both systems are abominations to any right thinking person it
must be conceded that the system works just nifty for those already in
power. The rats who are currently in control have absolutely no
motivation to change a system that has worked just great for them
personally.
submitted by LuNewsViews Reader
|
APWU Photo Contest Puts Members At Risk
(posted 6/2/02)
By Roland Petit
Recently the APWU's
newly appointed "Communications Director" has hatched a photo contest for
APWU members wherein she calls for photos "showing co-workers on the job,"
etc.
APWU members should be very wary of entering this contest as it may put them
at risk for two reasons:
Firstly, it is a violation of workplace rules and regulations to bring a
camera into the non-public areas of the USPS let alone actually take pictures
there. The posted workplace rules and regulations forbid the possession of a
camera and the taking of pictures on the workroom floor. "Photographs for
News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes-Photographs for news purposes may
be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used
for public meetings except where prohibited by official signs or Security
Force personnel or other authorized personnel, or a Federal court order or
rule. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local
postmaster or installation head." (excerpt from Rules and Regulations, April
1999) Heightened vigilance
is present now in this time of tighter security due to world and national
events. An APWU member who enters this contest is putting himself or herself
at risk. Although the advertisement says regarding the photo: "it could be
set at work"; it better not be or it may well be that member's photo
documented dismissal from the employment roles of the USPS.
Secondly, besides being a blatant violation of USPS posted workplace rules
and regulations, there are also individual privacy issues here as well. One
person's whacky photo may be another's continued source of embarrassment. The
person depicted may not want his or her image immortalized in a photo and
widely disseminated. If a photo of a co-worker is taken, off the clock and
off of USPS property it should still have the written consent and release
from the subject of the photo. Even those who may be pictured in the
background would have to sign off on their permission to release the photo
for publication.
Any APWU member thinking of entering this contest should think at least twice
and then reject the thought.
If the APWU is to have a Communications Department and a Communications
Director there are far better services to be rendered than a frivolous photo
contest. Money and resources would be better spent on communicating to the
membership help in establishing FMLA leave, communicating EVA bonus
information, communicating the Arbitration Transcripts, tracking aberrant
USPS managers as they are moved about in the system like pedophile priests,
communications between various locals and between members at various
worksites.
But whacky photos of co-workers on the job? No. That concept should go the
way of whacky tee-shirts and door prizes. What's needed is a more substantive
and serious agenda from the union. It is demeaning to the workforce and a
waste of resources for the newly appointed Communications Director to make
this her primary action in her new position.
Roland Petit
Support the APWU?
"vote with your feet"?
By Roland Petit
The union has not served the workers well in the recent past. The USPS is an "open" shop work environment. Federal law mandates that workers are not compelled to belong to any union. Many workers have opted to drop out (not an easy, straightforward process-as it is to join) or not to join for a variety of reasons.
When the union becomes a self serving club, existing primarily for the furtherance of its officers then it tends to alienate some of the dues paying membership. Maybe some of the most moral people do believe in collective bargaining but refuse to financially support a sham of an organization. Maybe some of the most moral people have left the union.
When a union exists that lies to its membership
(ET OPM code issue for example), has an extensive travel junket agenda (union officer trips to Las Vegas, Hawaii, Disneyland, Disney World, Puerto Rico, etc.), is self indulgent and self serving (limos for its officers, girlfriends brought down to DC for "administrative" posts, etc.), does not allow union membership voice to be heard (no dues paying non-officer can voice his/her opinion in the national union newspaper or on the union website -- in violation of the Postal Press Association credo), and the "Rank and File Committee" no longer has any rank and file membership on it (now populated by union officers exclusively), etc., then the membership tends to become alienated.
The wages have only been negotiated by the union once or twice since the reorganization act. Most of the wage formulations were the product of arbitrated settlements. Third party arbitrators arrived at what wages should be for the workers. They were not negotiated by the union. Since we live in the current economy and we can't barter sea shells to buy things at K-Mart we need money to survive. Knowing where the door is may be a whole lot easier than knowing where to get money to survive. It is not that easy to change jobs, as you probably know. The spending side of the economic equation flows easily and without many restrictions. The earning side of the economic equation is completely different. One can't just walk out the door and go to get hired elsewhere as easily as one can spend his money. Money is fungible; jobs aren't. Buying a sweater from K-Mart or Kohl's or wherever is a completely different story from starting over (at a later age) at another employment situation. Just consider seniority issues, ramping up of wages at most employment situations from newly hired wage to senior levels, medical insurance, etc. You will see that knowing where the door is can be a cruel joke on the worker.
Walking "out the door" today entails a "thirty foot" drop on "a hard pavement" considering that the union negotiated OPM code downgrade situates postal ETs in a less attractive position to other prospects by employers. That figurative and literal door referred to has no easy access to a safe surface and this is by design. Also "technical training" (non third party certified provincial and proprietary training of value only at the USPS) offered at NCED is designed solely for the benefit of the USPS and does not confer credentials for workers in the employment marketplace. After many years of working at the USPS is one really free to "walk out the door?"
After a certain amount of time on the job, it is best for one to remain there, for reasons
cited above. One, is in a sense, stuck with the situation for better or worse. Supposedly the union's goal is to make things better. That may have been at one time. Over time that has not been the case. The union as currently configured, in some localities and on the national level as well, is in need of reform. This is a dauntingly monumental job. The union has tended to mimic the employer in many aspects. It has taken the trappings of a bureaucracy of its own. It is unapproachable. (And yes, I have been attending union meetings.) It is self serving and political to the max. The betterment of the workforce, unfortunately, seems to be one of the last things with which it is concerned.
My current economic situation is that I may be here for a while for reasons mentioned above and others. Besides, what kind of a person would run from job to job, abandoning situations, rather than trying to change them? Of course, the union hierarchy would love those that become enlightened and awakened and who really get to see what is going on -- to just leave: just walk out the door. They would love to get a new recruit, a neophyte walking in the door to replace them. The union will gladly take their dues money just as easily without the hassle. It takes some of us a while before we see "the light." I was working at the post office for over 22 years and had minimal contact with the union. The few contacts I had were unsatisfactory but I chalked them as quirks. Over time I saw that all these quirks were not quirks at all. They established a pattern. But it took me quite a while to get an education regarding the union that I got. It was an epiphany from the school of hard knocks. I paid dearly the tuition of time, sweat, and tears for this education. That fungible money that I pay in union dues has a whole different meaning to me, as a put upon worker, than it would a wide eyed neophyte. I will continue to voice my opinions. I will be a union member for now and try to change things that are wrong. But I fully understand the decision to leave the union that was, is, and will be, made by thousands of our coworkers. That is their option. Upon setting up the union, federal law permitted opting out, if chosen. A union that truly represents its membership wouldn't have to be concerned about this choice. But the ultimate
vote is "voting with your feet" and that's the true final arbiter when all else fails. If you have any questions concerning what is presented here please feel free to ask. Thanks for your attention.
Roland Petit
- Saturday, January 19, 2002
