USPS Active Employees & Retirees...

Transcription

1 USPS Active Employees & Retirees... What you worked for... What you planned for... What you earned... What you have a right to expect... All of that is at risk... For employees, the USPS wants to change the rules in the middle of the game... For USPS retirees, the USPS wants to change the rules after the game is over... We are more than one million strong... We have a voice... Here are some things we all need to know... Here are some things we all need to do... Page 1

2 Here's what the USPS wants to do... Health and Retirement funds for all employees and retirees will be taken over by the USPS; Once in control of employee Health and Retirement funds the USPS will take what it believes to be its share and use those tens of billions to pay off debt and fund operations; In spite of claims to the contrary, health benefits for all employees and retirees will be cut; Earned retirement benefits will immediately be cut for present employees. Though USPS claims benefits will stay the same for current retirees, their ability to keep this promise is in doubt; Medicare-eligible retirees and employees will be forced to depend primarily on Medicare and USPS coverage will only fill the gap. "This will save a ton of money," said Postmaster General Pat Donahoe. The USPS plan and its Impact on Employees & Retirees... Citing legal requirements that USPS employees receive pay and benefits "comparable" to the private sector, the Postmaster General proposes sweeping cuts in Health and Retirement Benefits. The USPS proposes to withdraw 480,000 retirees and 600,000 active employees from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), and the Federal Employee Health Benefits program (FEHB) and provide tiered benefits through a new, independent plan managed by the USPS. To finance this the USPS proposes that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) transfer the billions already paid against CSRS and FERS obligations and yield the management and administration of those funds entirely and forever to the USPS. This plan forever "segregates" USPS employee and retiree funds and benefits from the federal government and links their soundness and security to the future success of the USPS, an enterprise with an uncertain future. It is reasonable to assume that if these retirement funds run low or dry up altogether (which, given the circumstances is not entirely unlikely) lawmakers would, at the very best, be reluctant to once again accept these obligations as debts of the United States. The Postal Service proposal says that once employee retirement and health benefit funds are transferred from the Office of Personnel Management to the USPS, a "study" would determine what portion of those funds represent "overpayments" and that amount would be transferred to the USPS to pay off debt and finance operations. In spite of the intention to make this process fair and objective the temptation inherent in such a conflict of interest may prove irresistible for those eager to shore up the fortunes of the enterprise, whatever the cost. Page 2

3 It would be tempting for such a study to be structured such that it produces the most optimistic result, maximizing the amount the USPS would be able to claim for its other expenses. In truth, estimating funding necessary to ensure sufficient reserves for decades to come is full of uncertainty. The amount needed depends on less-than-precise definitions, assumptions, and projections, all of which are subject to unforeseen changes. This uncertainty is seen in the substantial gap between the results of overpayment audits done by the OIG and the PRC and it is this uncertainty that some lawmakers, rightly or wrongly, cite as the basis for refusing to support legislation returning overpayments to the USPS for paying down debt and funding operations. Further, if Congress elected to unburden itself of retirement obligations to the more than one million current USPS retirees and employees, lawmakers would likely minimize the amount they would grant to the USPS. While management may acknowledge that some partial offer would be insufficient to ensure the strength of its retirement system, they may be tempted (and the law may compel them) to accept those billions, hoping against hope that smart management and good fortune would allow success. Though the language of the proposal tends to obscure this essential point, both the retirement and health benefit plans would reduce costs by cutting benefits. The intention to save through better management, economies of scale, and the negotiation of deeper discounts from medical providers rings hollow. Separated from the rest of the federal workforce the USPS would have an ever-diminishing pool of participants and far less bargaining power than before. The health benefit plan choices available through FEHB would be abolished and a plan "comparable" to the most "popular" of the current plans (i.e. the least expensive) would be instituted. This means employees and retirees are likely to have fewer choices in selecting doctors, hospitals, and treatments and would likely pay the same premiums for a lower level of service. Retirees and current employees who qualify for Medicare would be required to maximize their dependence on those benefits even if Medicare benefits are not sufficient to provide the level of protection needed. Language throughout the proposal is vague and allows a great deal of "wiggle room" for decision makers to reduce benefits without negotiation or appeal. For example, studies of comparability to private sector "best practices" produces wildly different conclusions depending on how the "study" is structured. In short, if you torture the data long enough you can get it to say whatever you want. The freedom to define terms like "private sector comparability" and "industry best practices" is the freedom to do as you please. Though we would like to believe that some or all members of the USPS leadership team have the best of intentions, assurances to current retirees to maintain benefits comparable to their present plan (CSRS or FERS) may prove hallow simply because the future of the hardcopy communications business is in doubt. Page 3

4 In their own proposals the USPS cites recent declines in volume and revenue that exceed even their own pessimistic forecasts; it states that this loss of business is structural and permanent and that no plan to grow revenue would reverse these trends. These are all arguments against supporting the USPS proposals. The USPS reports that it has paid hundreds of billions toward retiree pension and health benefits. If Congress and the President were to make a permanent grant of this amount to the USPS (which is extremely unlikely) and if these funds were properly managed for the long term, the USPS is convinced there is more than sufficient money to ensure that payments to present and future be made according to the various benefit tiers for the lifetime of retirees and their survivors. However, it is reasonable to question the ability of the USPS to manage its own retirement and health benefits plan. The proposal itself acknowledges that the organization's lack of expertise in these fields would require hiring contractors and consultants to create and administer these complex entities. The value of the long experience of the OPM should not be underestimated nor its services dismissed as easily reproduced. Finally, for long-term employees this is changing the rules in the middle of the game and for current retirees this is changing the rules after the game is over. Neither is fair and it is reasonable to argue that both are illegal. However, experience reminds us that neither fairness nor the law, by themselves, ensure that such proposals do not become policy. This is why the more than one million USPS employees and retirees must take decisive action immediately. Indeed, the entire Federal workforce stands to lose if the Postal Service is allowed to do this. Postmaster General Pat Donahoe is on record saying these cutbacks could become a template for other benefit cuts throughout the Federal government. Action... Take decisive action now before these proposals gain momentum in Congress. In its early stages a disease is easy to cure, but hard to see; later the disease is easy to see but hard to cure. Learn. Stay current. Share what you know. Communicate your concerns to friends, family, colleagues, leaders and decision-makers. Communicate not once but again and again through a variety of mediums, not least of which should be hard-copy, personal letters. Be confident in your ability to affect the final outcome for the good. While realism is necessary, pessimism is self-defeating. Others have made a difference. So can you. Indifference is dangerous. Shrugging off the need for action because "Congress will never pass such a thing" is risky. Page 4

5 Others may postpone action because they're convinced these proposals are nothing more than a "cry for help" and a way to get lawmakers to focus their attention on the inequities of the 2006 reform law. Many intelligent and thoughtful people believe that this is so and we all hope they are right. However, there is a chance they are wrong and failing to take decisive, preemptive action may be something we will regret. Remember, you only have to lose your rights once in order to lose them forever. Focus on the desired outcome, not on the personalities involved or their possible motives. Avoid invective. Eschew threats. Genuine feeling is an asset; out-of-control emotion is a liability. Be as concise as possible but as complete as necessary. Be specific and clear about what you want. Your reader should not be in doubt about what defines a good outcome. The sincerity and truthfulness of your message is more powerful than any "professional prose." You don't have to be a professional writer to effectively get your point of view across. Personal letters get attention and action. Form letters are often dismissed as an annoyance. Make your point of view come alive by describing the impact this plan would have on you, your family, and your survivors. The most memorable and effective messages are personal. Remember, you earned these benefits. They are not gifts, they are rights which, in a just world, should be seen for what they are: contracts. Communicate with... Your family, friends, business associates, and colleagues; The President of the United States; Congress, especially members of USPS oversight committees; Senior USPS Management; The Postal Regulatory Commission; Unions and Management Associations; National Active and Retired Federal Employees (NARFE). U.S. Postal Employees & Retirees in Common Cause... U.S. Postal Employees & Retirees in Common Cause is an informal organization created in response to proposals released by the U.S. Postal Service on August 12, It is our position that these "discussion documents" propose actions that would do irreparable harm to more than one million USPS employees, retirees, their families and their survivors. We are dedicated to communicating the facts and facilitating effective action to produce an outcome that keeps faith with employees, retirees, and other USPS stakeholders. Page 5

6 We freely acknowledge that fundamental changes in communications technology and consumer choices necessitate change. However, we are also convinced there are more moderate alternatives available to the radical, sweeping changes proposed. U.S Postal Employees & Retirees in Common Cause encourages participation in and support of wellestablished organizations including, but not limited to, National Active and Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) and the various unions and management associations representing USPS employees. After achieving its aim of building awareness and encouraging action, U.S Postal Employees and Retirees in Common Cause will transfer its energy to supporting well-established existing organizations. Page 6