By American Postal Workers Union (AMPU)

– A document unearthed in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reveals why the APWU is adamant that the Postal Service’s deal with Staples – and others like it – must be stopped.

The March 26, 2012, document exposes the secret privatization recommendation a Postal Service consultant made to USPS management: Eliminate most retail facilities throughout the country, along with the work of APWU employees.
The document is covered by a “protective order” that prohibits its disclosure, but the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the case has ruled that the contents can be summarized and brought out from behind the veil of secrecy.

As described by the judge in his order, the document reveals that the Postal Service’s consultant made a number of proposals to the USPS, including that the Postal Service invest in high-traffic Postal Service locations and that it eliminate the majority of the standard-volume Postal Service locations and migrate that work to retail partners that are not staffed by APWU members.

The judge’s order says, “The document was not prepared by the [USPS] and does not, on its face, reveal whether the [USPS] adopted any of the proposals contained in it.” As the APWU sees it, the deal with Staples is consistent with this recommendation.
“The USPS claim that the Staples deal is about providing customers with better access is a hoax. It is clearly a privatization scheme to transfer postal services – and our work – to the private sector,” APWU President Mark Dimondstein said.
“This document proves we are on the right track and should double down to stop this dirty deal in its tracks. Continue the boycott of Staples and Quill.com and continue to encourage our co-workers, families and friends to do the same.”

By Jason Gottesman

– So-called “paycheck protection” legislation that passed the Senate in October began its way through the House Tuesday as the House State Government Committee sent Senate Bill 501 to the full House along a party-line vote.

According to committee Majority Chairman Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), the legislation is on track to be considered by the House when they return to session in the first week of February.

The bill—sponsored by Sen. John Eichelberger (R-Blair)—would eliminate the ability of public sector labor unions to automatically deduct political donations from members’ paychecks.

Democrats on the committee unanimously opposed the legislation and expressed a number of procedural and substantive concerns with the legislation.

Speaking to the procedural concerns, Rep. Mike O’Brien (D-Philadelphia) noted members only had about 15 minutes’ notice that the bill would be considered in committee Tuesday and did not have time to review proposed changes to the bill.

“Certainly in the interests of an open and transparent process, I think it’s important that we have time to review this material,” he said before moving to table the bill until after Wednesday’s House floor session.

The motion to table failed along a party-line vote with Rep. Metcalfe noting the committee has had the bill since October and Democrats were able to review the legislation enough to file a number of amendments to it.

Substantively, Democrats on the committee noted that the Commonwealth allows automatic deductions for a number of different things like savings accounts and child support, to insurance payments and pension plans.

Many Democrats on the committee also argued that union members have to choose whether or not to have the contributions deducted from their paycheck and aren’t forced to donate to union political activities.

“This legislation is nothing more than a bold faced attempt at really just going after unions, it has really nothing to do with taxpayer money,” said Rep. Steve McCarter (D-Montgomery). “All of these things are bargained across the table. In effect, what we are really doing here is attacking the collective bargaining process that people have a result of being members of a union.”

Republicans on the committee posited having the Commonwealth involved in collecting what they say amounts to taxpayer dollars that are then used by unions for political purposes that could lead to tax increases is an inherent conflict of interest.

“It has nothing to do with the costs, it’s simply a matter of right and wrong,” said Rep. Dan Truitt (R-Chester). “It’s simply a matter of not having state resources used to collect money that is ultimately used for political purposes.”

While the bill took a step forward Tuesday, its ultimate conclusion might not be so positive.

Gov. Tom Wolf’s office noted shortly after the committee vote that he opposes the bill.

“The governor does not support paycheck protection legislation,” said Gov. Wolf’s press secretary Jeff Sheridan.

Source – http://plsreporter.com/Home/TabId/56/ArtMID/472/ArticleID/1122/%E2%80%9CPaycheck-protection%E2%80%9D-legislation-begins-march-through-House.aspx#.Vqiq01vpVuE.facebook