 Thank you Chairman Burton for the opportunity to testify today on the subject of postal reform. I am Vince Sombrotto, President of the National Association of Letter Carriers, representing more than 315,000 active and retired letter carriers. Our members are the men and women out on the streets of America delivering mail to more that 130 million places six days a week. They are a dedicated and professional group who work hard to serve the public.
For more than six years, the NALC has worked closely with Representative John McHugh and other members of this committee to come up with meaningful postal reform legislation. In the beginning we had some serious concerns about some of the provisions of the bill. Rather than walking away, we chose to work with Mr. McHugh and the end result was HR 22—a bold approach to reforming the Postal Service. I fear that if we do not act soon, even the far-reaching goals envisioned in HR 22 will not be enough to put the Postal Service on a stable foundation. That is because every day without action is another day that the Postal Service continues to operate under an outdated statutory model and an expensive—albeit vital—universal service mandate. The "Postal Reorganization Act of 1970" is more than 30 years old and pre-dates the advent of the internet and other advanced electronic communication. Moreover, the legislation could not have anticipated the intense global competition that now exists within the delivery service marketplace. If we are to continue to provide the high level of service the American public has come to expect from us, then we must take action and we must take it soon.
If the reports coming from the United States Postal Service are to be believed, we will be facing some major challenges in the near future. Under the current system, the Postal Service is particularly vulnerable to economic fluctuations. For example, the Postal Service delivers more than 52 billion pieces of financial mail—statements, invoices, payments—each year. An economic slowdown, coupled with reduced lending by banks and marketing cutbacks all result in lower mail volume and reduced postal revenue.
There is an understandable sentiment that there should not be increased rates until the Postal Service has cut their costs. However, the number of delivery points grows by some 5600 addresses a day, and mail volume is relatively flat. The result is higher costs without increased revenue. Therefore, the Postal Service needs a statutory framework that will enable it to find new ways of generating revenue. The Postal Service can and should be seeking ways to expand the services they offer, including negotiated service agreements and creating joint ventures with private companies. Unfortunately, some of the suggestions put forth by the Postal Service have gone in the opposite direction.
The Postal Service's recent overtures to cut back on service or erode collective bargaining rights are neither desirable nor are they feasible. We hope that the Postal Service has finally recognized this reality and is prepared to work with us on finding ways to improve performance and to provide this great institution with the tools needed to succeed in this new economy. The Postal Service should be looking at ways to enhance service, not looking at five day delivery or cutting back on its core services. If your product or service is running head-on into stiffer competition—perhaps from other business, perhaps from emerging technologies, perhaps from both—you don't reduce the quality of your product or service so it's less attractive to customers. You try to figure out how to improve your product or service. In the case of the Postal Service, this would mean more timely delivery as well as innovative services and products that meet consumers' changing needs. For businesses, the Postal Service could look to flexible and market-driven pricing, accurate and timely information about the progress of their mailings and perhaps new logistical and inventory control services. Ideas such as five day delivery are not an enhancement of service.
The other point that has been raised recently pertains to the collective bargaining system under which the Postal Service operates. Despite the commitment that John McHugh has made to the current collective bargaining system and the agreement of many of the largest postal customers that changes to collective bargaining will not be a part of a postal reform bill, some continue to bring up the issue.
Let me make clear what you, Mr. Chairman, already understand — that the NALC will not support any postal reform bill that includes erosion of collective bargaining rights and, specifically, third-party arbitration. Without third-party arbitration as the last resort should the parties be unable to reach what the NALC has always sought—a negotiated settlement—there would be no pressure on management to negotiate fairly and constructively. Calls for doing away with the right of neutral third-party arbitration in exchange for the right to strike are a non-starter with us. The models cited, such as the "Railway Labor Act" would drastically undermine the rights of all postal employees. Binding arbitration enables our members to do their job and, when management is not willing to achieve a negotiated settlement, provides letter carriers with a fair way to get a fair contract for their work.
As we march down the road toward Postal Reform there are some key principles that we must adhere to—in addition to protecting collective bargaining—including the preservation universal service and giving the Postal Service greater flexibility. The preservation of universal service is paramount. This means providing full mail service to every address, six days a week. As one of the members of this committee said at a recent breakfast for letter carriers, "we must stand up for universal service, because it is a key element in communication among Americans." Other essential elements include enabling the Postal Service to enter into contractual agreements and providing it with the flexibility to adapt to unexpected changes in the economy, such as the recent increases in fuel prices.
The Postal Service has a constituency that is as vast and diverse as the country itself. Legislation affecting this institution affects us all. That is why we have reached out and worked alongside other key players in the postal reform effort — not just elected officials, but some of the people and organizations that have a large stake in the future of the Postal Service. We have made significant progress in reaching agreement on a number of issues and continue to reach toward a comprehensive approach to reform that has broad support.
The NALC is committed to working with all of the stakeholders in the postal reform debate. In addition to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman McHugh, we know that this has to be a bipartisan effort. In order to address the challenges facing the Postal Service we need active input of ranking member Henry Waxman, as well as Representative Danny Davis, who has also demonstrated great leadership on the issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the testimony here today, and I look forward to working with you to meet the challenges of enacting postal reform. |
