• anon

    Taken from managements comments in the linked audit: "Regarding recommendation 3, management stated they are implementing a new MS-1, operation and maintenance, staffing process to determine the correct number of maintenance staff needed at each mail processing plant. Management stated they have suspended hiring in anticipation of potential maintenance staff reductions, but after each plant’s staffing package is approved, they will be allowed to fill vacancies up to the new authorized levels. The target implementation date is August 1, 2019." *** - Has there been a single facility that the authorized complement increased? I'd be surprised to find a case that occurred. The average reduction I heard with the new MS1 is a 75% reduction of building mechanic positions. The new staffing allotted less hours per square foot (nothing changed about the building, they just get less hours now). Any particular local conditions which routes were designed around previously were removed to implement a national standard. Perhaps that is good in some way, it is at least a logical approach. What isn't logical is providing the absolute bare minimum in every single category of equipment with a faulty system where the equipment is entered. The whole revamp was a rushed fraud with blatantly invalid data being pushed on from HQ to attempt to get a new number so they could construct a narrative of having taken 'aggressive management actions' to result in 'savings'. Those 'savings' will surely result in further actual costs and issues for years to come. The USPS doesn't truly care about implementing realistic solutions systematically to address issues, as everything is viewed as costing too much (there is no outlook at the preventative costs benefits any longer, nor any real investment to make the software that the data is input into to work properly) that doesn't involve directly putting a letter in a mail box. Just look at the methodology of the audit you put out before. Do you really believe a feel good comment response that management agrees will make any tangible difference overall to the approach of maintenance being conducted at facilities? There is something obviously wrong systematically if each and every facilities local management is doing something wrong or not managing well enough. I recall a previous audit conducted where HVAC maintenance was looked at. From what I recall the conclusion was that the HVAC routes should be completed. This was just before the new MS1 where the HVAC routes were hacked down to a bare minimum, with the staffing model to now match what is earned based on those minimal routes. That conclusion was a good example of chasing a number as well frankly. Do you realize how many mechanics and management simply pencil whip those sorts of routes as being completed to not have a bypass without fully conducting the entire route? That would make a good example of what are things local management at various facilities should realistically improve on. What isn't a good conclusion is that every single facility across the nation claims to have severe staffing issues as a result of a faulty staffing model which can't keep up with the workload. I probably just repeated the same thing 5x over, but it frankly really irritates me how shortsighted and cheap the USPS becomes over maintenance considering how little of cost/percentage it makes up of the overall workforce versus the benefits it provides in preventing major issues. There are many times over more waste in delivery and mail processing versus what the additional building mechanics in the old MS1 would have costed.

    Mar 03, 2020
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.