on Jan 7th, 2013
| 5 comments
U.S. Postal Service employees are covered by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), which provides workers’ compensation benefits to civilian federal employees who sustain work-related injuries or an occupational disease. The U.S. Department of Labor Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers workers’ compensation and provides direct compensation to providers, claimants, and beneficiaries. The Postal Service later reimburses OWCP in what is known as “charge-back billings.” The Postal Service is the largest FECA participant in the federal government. It paid $1.2 billion in workers’ compensation claims and $67 million in administrative fees in charge-back year 2011. In addition, its estimated total liability for future workers’ compensation costs is about $17.5 billion. The Postmaster General noted in testimony last year that when the Postal Service revalues its liability to reflect current interest rates, it creates significant non-cash fluctuations in its bottom line. For this reason and others, the Postal Service has pushed for comprehensive FECA reform legislation. Providing gainful employment within medically defined work restrictions is in the best interest of both employees and the Postal Service. The Postal Service uses its limited duty program to assign available work for those employees who are temporarily unable to perform their regular functions. Limited duty employees retain the discipline of going to work every day and recuperation may also be accelerated if they are as active as possible. Early return to the regular job is the ultimate objective of the limited duty program. However, with diminishing mail volumes and limited resources for proactive case management, the Postal Service faces significant challenges in providing adequate work. The Health and Resource Management (HRM) staff and other officials play an important role in administering the injury compensation program and reducing related costs by returning injured employees to work as soon as possible and, in part, pursuing third-party liability. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) intends to assess whether the Postal Service’s HRM staff, supervisors, and other officials have all the necessary resources to successfully return employees back to work. And if not, what tools do they need to facilitate the return to work process. What practices are working or should be changed to more effectively administer the Postal Service’s injury compensation program? Share your comments in our blog section and follow the link to take one of the three surveys on this topic, depending on your employment position.
on Jun 6th, 2011
| 24 comments
It happens many times . . . a company invests time and money into training employees only to have them leave soon after the training is complete. Some industries and companies now have contractual agreements requiring employees to repay training costs to their employers if they separate from employment before a specified period. Congress has also passed legislation requiring continued service agreements from government employees who have received extensive training. These contracts obligate employees to continue working for the agency (or another government agency, depending on their employer’s policy) for a period at least equal to three times the length of the training. If the employee leaves government service before the agreed-upon service time, the agency has the right to require repayment for the amount of time not served. Private sector industries such as information technology, airline, and trucking are also requiring employees to sign these types of agreements. One company requires employees to sign contracts for training programs that are considered expensive and time intensive. The company uses a formula that equates one month of labor for every $1,000 of costs; for example, a $7,000 course would require a seven month commitment.
The U.S. Postal Service employs approximately 40,000 maintenance craft employees to work in a variety of assignments. Some of these assignments, such as maintenance mechanics, require specific training at great cost to the Postal Service. For example, one training course lasts 13 days and costs $3,325 per employee.
Should employees receiving specialized training sign contracts to remain with the Postal Service for a specified period so that the cost of providing the training can be recouped? Should employees who received training be permitted to leave for more lucrative positions in the private sector as soon as they are certified without compensating the Postal Service? Should such restrictions apply to all Postal Service employees who receive specialized training?This blog is hosted by the Office of Audit's Network Processing team.
on Apr 4th, 2011
| 13 comments
Consumer needs for postal services are changing quickly resulting in the U. S. Postal Service developing a plan to right size the workforce. New Postmaster General and CEO Pat Donahoe announced on March 24 that the Postal Service plans to enact the Reduction in Force (RIF) and Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) processes with the goal of eliminating 7,500 administrative, supervisory, and postmaster positions. Additionally, the Postal Service will cut the number of vice president level officers by 16 percent and eliminate the senior vice president position. Since 2007, the Postal Service has sponsored a number of recruitment and retention initiatives. One initiative identified critical needs in finance, supply management and engineering. Other efforts included the revamping of the Corporate Succession Planning process and the formation of a Leadership Development and Talent Management group in Human Resources. As the Postal Service continues to right size, one question remains: How can it develop a strategy to retain needed talents and attract new ones for its future, especially in a time when it is focusing on cost cutting? What does the Postal Service need to do to retain, develop, and attract future workers? Let us know what you think!
This site provides a forum to discuss different aspects of the United States Postal Service and how it can be improved. We encourage you to share your comments, ideas, and concerns.
This is a moderated site—we will review all comments before posting them. We expect that participants will treat each other with respect. We will not post comments that contain vulgar language, personal attacks of any kind, or offensive terms that target specific individuals or groups. We will not post comments that are clearly off-topic or that promote services or products. Comments that make unsupported accusations will also not be posted.
We ask that reporters send questions to the USPS OIG Media Office through their normal channels and refrain from submitting questions here as comments. We will not post questions from reporters.
We recognize that the Web is a 24/7 medium, and your comments are welcome at any time. Given the need to manage Federal resources effectively, however, we will review comments and post them from 9:00 a.m—5:00 p.m Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. We will read and post comments submitted after hours, on weekends, or on holidays as early as possible the next business day.
To protect your own privacy, and the privacy of others, please do not include personal information or personally identifiable information such as names, addresses, phone numbers or e-mail addresses in the body of your comment.
Except when specifically noted, any views or opinions expressed on this forum (or any other forums available via an RSS feed) are those of the individual bloggers. The views and posted comments do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General, or the Federal government.
Thank you for taking the time to read this comment policy and disclaimer. We plan to blog weekly on as many emerging new media topics as possible. We encourage your participation in our discussion and look forward to an active exchange of ideas.