 |
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
|
| September 17, 2003 | |||
 |
|||
|
“US POSTAL SERVICE: WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ENSURE ITS FUTURE VIABILITY?”
Senator Joe Lieberman's Statement |
|||
|
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for convening this hearing on the recommendations of the President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service. The Commission was established in December 2002 and was charged with identifying the severe financial and managerial challenges facing the Postal Service, examining potential solutions, and recommending legislative and administrative steps to ensure the long-term viability of the Postal Service.
On July 31, the Commission issued its report, which contains 35 recommendations to reform the Postal Service on a wide range of topics. I commend the Commissioners for their efforts to understand and analyze the many challenges the Postal Service faces, and I believe they have made a number of valuable recommendations. For example, I have long been an advocate for greater financial disclosure by the Postal Service, to provide the American people a full accounting of its fiscal health, and I am pleased that the Commission has also seen the need for such increased financial transparency. But before I say more about this and other recommendations that I support, I must first express my profound disappointment about parts of the Commission’s report that seem based on the mistaken belief that the problems of Postal Service can be solved by capping and cutting the pay and benefits of its workers. It is hard to think of any institution with a greater impact on virtually every American than the Postal Service, and its effective functioning depends on the continued loyal service and hard work of its employees. I believe that Commission recommendations which would undermine collective bargaining, threaten employees’ economic security, and add to morale problems in the workplace, are misconceived and counterproductive. Such suggestions send the wrong message at the wrong time to postal workers: just when their good will and hard work are most needed to improve the Postal Service’s status, these proposals convey the message that postal workers are part of the problem instead of the solution. For example, although wages at the Postal Service are now established by negotiation between management and employee representatives under a system of collective-bargaining, the Commission proposes to empower a new presidentially-appointed Postal Regulatory Board to determine what it believes are comparable compensation levels in the private sector and then to forbid collective bargaining agreements to exceed those caps. Collective bargaining, where management and labor are supposed to meet and bargain on a level field, would become a sham if a presidentially-appointed political board suppresses wages by capping or even lowering the compensation levels that can be agreed to. Another troubling recommendation is the Commission’s proposal to empower managers at the Postal Service to bargain away the pension and post-retirement health-care benefits of workers. These benefits, which are now established in statute, are based on longstanding congressional initiatives and commitments, keeping Postal Service employees under the same health and retirement benefits as federal civil service employees. Breaking these commitments and subjecting pension and retiree health-care rights to negotiation is an unwarranted step that could well result in reduced benefits and hardship to postal workers. I urge my colleagues on this Committee and in the full Senate to recognize the importance of maintaining our commitment to a professional and fairly compensated postal workforce, and to oppose these and other proposals that try to fix the Postal Service’s problems on the backs of a workforce that delivers for each and every one of us every day. Despite my deep opposition to some of the Commission’s workforce recommendations, I believe other aspects of its report are worthy of commendation. For example, as I mentioned earlier, I have long supported efforts to improve the transparency of the Postal Service’s financial reporting. In the last Congress, I joined with other members of this Committee to successfully urge the Postal Service to provide more and better financial information on its website, but these improvements were only a beginning. Greater openness is an important first step toward fiscal health and accountability, and I support the Commission=s recommendation that the Postal Service=s financial reporting be enhanced. Whether this reporting should take the form of SEC-like requirements, as the Commission recommends, is a question that needs further study, but it is clear to me that the public and the mailing community, as well as the Postal Service itself, will benefit from this additional disclosure. I also agree with the Commission that we need to set qualifications ensuring a breadth of experience and skills on the Postal Board of Governors, and that this Board should operate in many ways like successful corporate boards now do. However, I am not convinced that allowing the Board members to select their own successors, as proposed by the Commission, is the right choice for a governmental entity like the Postal Service that must still be answerable to Congress and the public. Another worthwhile recommendation of the Commission urges the Postal Service to review its entire management structure to reduce unnecessary layers of management and to realign and modernize its organization. This review would help the Postal Service to optimize communications and efficiency throughout the organization and to effectively plan for the future. Finally, the Commission wisely reaffirmed certain basic principles fundamental to the future of the Postal Service, such as the concept of universal service and preserving the postal monopoly on first class letter mail. However, I believe the suggested role of a new Postal Regulatory Board in “refining” these concepts requires additional review. Madam Chairman, I know there are many difficult decisions and discussions ahead as we consider these recommendations. This hearing is a good first step. I hope future hearings will allow us to hear from those most affected by the Commission’s recommendations. |
|||
| ### | |||
| Printable Version | |||
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510