• on Sep 28th, 2009 in Labor | 190 comments
    Silly Signs, Silly Rules –- Know Any?

    Workplace rules exist for a reason. Some rules are designed to protect employees’ rights and their safety, while others protect the employer and workplace. Then there are some rules that are just plain silly, and we ask ourselves why are they even are in place.

    Sometimes the best way to find these rules is to ask. Last March, Major General Michael Oates of the Army’s 10th Mountain Division asked for information on the stupidest rules or policies in the Army in his Mountain Sound Off blog. Soldiers commented on everything from uniform regulations to policies on leave. FederalTimes.com borrowed the same idea and asked its readers, “What are the dumbest workplace rules affecting you?”

    Since we know you aren’t shy, we thought we’d ask you the same question about the Postal Service. What Postal Service workplace rules are hindering you from doing your job? Are there rules or processes in place that no longer apply or need to be changed to meet today’s business needs? Let us know what you think.

    This blog is hosted by the OIG's Risk Analysis Research Center (RARC).

  • on Sep 8th, 2009 in Labor | 7 comments
    Source: BLS Metropolitan Area Wage Estimates May 2008
    (Occupation Codes: 25-2031, 43-5052, and 47-2061)

    Thanks for the great response to last week's blog. Last week, we asked about pay comparability, and 23 percent of those polled voted that the goal for postal compensation should be to match the prevailing private sector compensation. However, 35 percent voted that Postal Service compensation should exceed private sector pay, and the largest group of voters (40 percent) said that Postal Service pay should be set at levels necessary to get good, qualified employees.

    In reality, matching private sector pay is virtually impossible with a uniform pay structure. Why? The uniform postal wage may be much higher than the prevailing wages in a low cost-of-living area and much lower than private sector pay in high-cost areas. A letter carrier working in New York makes the same as the letter carrier working in Dubuque, Iowa. So this week, we’re seeking your opinions and comments on wage uniformity. Regardless of how you feel about the need to match the private sector in general, should postal wages vary by area? The federal government currently has 31 locality pay areas for General Schedule (GS) employees, and the federal “blue collar” schedule called the Federal Wage System has 257 wage grade areas. Should postal wages vary in a similar manner by locality?

    What are some of the consequences of having uniform wages? Does it make it harder to find qualified workers in urban areas? Are workers more reluctant to relocate to high-wage areas? What do you think?

    To limit the effect on effect on current employees, a two-tier system could be introduced that applies geographic-based pay to new employees only. What do you think about a two-tier system?

    Are there other alternatives for introducing geographic-based pay?

    This blog is hosted by the OIG’s Risk Analysis Research Center (RARC).

  • on Aug 31st, 2009 in Labor | 54 comments
    The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 included the goal of matching postal employees’ compensation with that of private sector workers. The recently enacted Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) did not alter that goal. However, such a comparison is virtually impossible since private sector compensation varies considerably by locale, whereas postal compensation does not. It is also difficult to decide what constitutes a comparable job, and how benefits should be considered. Given the Postal Service’s financial situation and calls for down-sizing, the issues surrounding this policy take on special meaning. Over the course of the next two weeks, we’d like to ask you about this policy in general, its applicability in the diverse labor market across the country, and what changes might be in order to facilitate the financial situation and the level of service afforded the public.

    So, first of all, as a general matter and notwithstanding current contracts, does it make sense to attempt to match private sector compensation? Does the goal in the 1970 legislation still make sense today?

    How should Postal Service pay be set? If private-sector comparability is used, what types of jobs are comparable to postal work?

    This blog is hosted by the OIG's Risk Analysis Research Center (RARC).

Pages