Memorandum of Understanding #2

The parties recognize the existing evaluated system of compensation to be fair, reasonable, and equitable method of payment. The parties recognize that the evaluated system is comprised of elemental standards which may not in every instance be adequate for an individual carrier; nevertheless, the parties agree that the time standards, when examined collectively , represent a fair day's pay for rural carriers.

Where discrepancies develop in the element of the present route evaluation system, which has been in use for many years, and into the time standards of the system that has been applied to office and road duties, the Employer may undertake studies to correct such discrepancies so long as the changes are consistent with the principles of this memorandum and Article 34.

The reason that I start with this is as a reminder of the fluctuations that can occur within and without the evaluated system. I have recently been having to address verbally and now with the grievance process an issue in the execution of my duties that if you have not been assailed with most assuredly will with the gradual increase of mail volume and then the busy season that we in seasonal ares are affected.

This is the projected evaluation of our routes on a weekly basis or even a daily basis.
This issue has reared its ugly head in my career on more than one occasion and has once again become an issue with the number crunchers in the Suncoast District.
It is inevitable that we are going to be under our evaluation and conversely over our evaluation on a pretty regular basis as the idea of even mail flow is just that an idea, also route conditions and even office conditions need to come into play when addressing this issue yet those that have chosen to lead in this corporation have once again failed to take into consideration those facts and rely specifically on what the numbers are saying.

Why?
Once again this corporation has forgotten what exactly evaluated means or at this point I believe even cares. If there was a 2080 problem then it is understandable but in my case and many like me the idea of having to stay within our evaluations is pure hogwash (colorful metaphor).

Whats even worse is coming to me on a Wednesday morning after 2 days that are traditionally heavier than normal expecting me to work under to keep them within the projected evaluation, borders on coercion maybe even harassment.
Does management want me to hurry to cut corners to stay with projected at the expense of safety or even incorrect delivery because they want me to stay in projections? Even worse are they expecting my RCA to do the same without concern for our wellbeing?

I am proceeding forth with my grievance to underline the facts that this is about them and their numbers and not what I am doing on a daily or weekly basis. These figures that are our evaluation that are taken in a snapshot of 12 days are not what we encounter throughout the rest of the year and to impose their will upon us at their leisure is a slap in the face of all that is reasonable in this profession.
We can no longer allow a confusion of time standards that were created 34 years ago or even with the most recent MOUs that continue to diminish our standards to be what we encounter on a routine basis.
Shame on those number crunchers for their intimidating tactics.