Are Unions Necessary?
By Michael Hiltzik
February 27, 2014 | 10:34 a.m.
Short answer: Yes.
The question is posed by an exchange launched by Evan Soltas at Bloomberg View, and answered
by Michael Wasser of the workers rights organization Jobs for Justice.
Soltas has defended himself against
Wasser's response, so this could go on for a while.
The discussion was inspired by the recent defeat of a United Auto
Workers drive at the Chattanooga, Tenn., plant of Volkswagen, which we
discuss here. The case has inspired lots of commentary about the long-term decline
of industrial unions in the U.S. and the role of that trend in the increasing of
income inequality. The two trends coincide, so there really is no question that
the decline of workers' voice and worker rights resulting from the decline of
unions has played an important role in the rising power of the shareholding and
One hates to say of a writer as fluent as Soltas that his analysis lacks the
depth that would come from experience, but Wasser is certainly correct in
arguing that Soltas' argument that the U.S. is better off without unions and
"unions can't be saved" reflects the limitations of textbook-learning. A few
To think that federal labor law has had "little to do" with union decline, as
Soltas puts it, is hopelessly naive. He's misled by the fact that union
membership has fallen even though we have laws guaranteeing the right to
collective bargaining, and by the failure to recognize how inadequately those
laws are enforced.
"Soltas doesn’t even consider the ramifications of broken labor law," Wasser
observes, and he's right. "Without any real penalties to fear, employers have an
economic incentive to violate federal labor law. Research shows that
indeed they regularly do, using a variety of often unlawful tactics to coerce
and intimidate workers during union organizing campaigns."
When the employers don't do so, political representatives of the capital-holding
class will, as was seen in Chattanooga, where politicians used the threat of the
withdrawal of government subsidies, and the impact that would have on the
workforce, as a weapon against the union.
Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union
organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to
examine "Confessions of a Union Buster," the heartfelt memoir
Martin Jay Levitt published in 1993.
"I come from a very dirty business," Levitt told a carpenters union audience
(after his conversion). As he described it, "the enemy was the collective
spirit. I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it,
choked it, bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom
into a united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant."
One simply can't explain the decline of union representation without
acknowledging the role of employer opposition and its empowerment by government
policy, as outlined in this 2009 report from the Economic Policy Institute. The
government role includes not merely the behavior of the Tennessee GOP, but
"right to work" laws, and the enfeeblement of the National Labor Relations Board
and its intimidation by members of Congress.
It's also important to understand two additional factors that make union
organizing difficult, and which can't be absorbed from college textbooks or
academic papers: fear and complacency. Fear reigns during periods of slack
employment and job growth, when workers perceive that the surfeit of replacement
labor makes it costless for employers to sack them for any reason at all,
including labor organizing. Lax enforcement of labor law plays into this in a
Complacency reigns during periods of tight labor supply and prosperity, when the
workforce figures, why siphon off part of my paycheck in union dues, since I'm
already well-paid and reasonably secure? To a certain extent this was a factor
in Chattanooga, where workers considered themselves well-paid and well-treated,
and therefore couldn't fully comprehend what more union membership would get
Fear has been the dominant factor over the last decade or so of economic
underperformance, but they're both obstacles to union growth.
Yet we must ask why employers would so assiduously fight unions if not for fear
of their effectiveness? Soltas' take on the union's role in the workplace is by
far the most naive element of his original piece. He cites a judgment by two
academic economists that unions balance power between employers and workers, and
that this role is important but not entirely positive. "They're right," he
concludes. Although union power "helps union members, it’s inefficient and bad
for the economy as a whole, and it’s especially bad for nonunion workers."
Soltas cites no authority for these statements. That's unsurprising because
they're nonsensical. The only vantage point from which union power can be seen
as inefficient and bad for the economy is that of rent-seeking management, which
is far more inefficient and bad for the economy--that's exactly what has led to
income inequality and the stagnation of economic growth that is its consequence.
As Brad DeLong of UC Berkeley wrote recently,
"Tell me, if you can do so with a straight face, that any aspect of the large
upward leap in inequality we have experienced has paid any benefits at all in
terms of true … human material welfare-enhancing
economic growth. I don't think you can."
As for the benefits unions have brought to nonunion workers, they're legion:
progressive workplace laws including safety and child labor regulations, overall
higher wages, retirement and healthcare benefits. The decline of all these
features of the American workplace has coincided exactly with the decline of
unions. That should tell you something.
Soltas argues that the answer to the decline of unions is to "stop businesses
from abusing labor laws by classifying their employees as independent
contractors." We should institute "monetary and fiscal policies aimed at full
employment," he says.
Where does he think the impetus for these advances will come from, if not the
labor movement? He may not have noticed, but Congress today is in the grip of
the employer class. They're not agitating for tighter enforcement of labor laws,
and they're not speaking up for full employment, either--that just means they'd
have to pay higher wages, and who needs that?
View the original article on the LA Times site.
Senate Panel Approves ‘Disastrous’ Postal Bill
It is imperative that you all call Senator Carl Levin’s office and express your
outrage over his supporting this Union killing piece of legislation.
Be respectful but be forceful.
Identify yourself as being from the APWU and the 480
481 Area Local. This attack on postal workers cannot be allowed to succeed. I
cannot understand how someone who has been as loyal to Labor as Senator Carl
Levin would support such a union killing bill.
We must be prepared to mobilize and defend our way of life against legislation such as this!
Roscoe Woods - President
Senator Carl Levin’s contact information is: 313-226-6020
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved an
amended version of a postal bill (S. 1486) that faces vehement opposition from
the four postal unions. The committee with oversight responsibility for the
Postal Service passed the measure by a vote of 9-1 on Feb. 6.
“This was a bad bill that was made worse by the ‘substitute’ version that was
introduced last week,” said APWU Legislative and Political Director John
Marcotte. “Today the committee amended the bill around the edges but gave no
relief to workers and no long-term assurances to the American people about their
The bill, which was introduced by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Sen. Tom Coburn
Threaten 100,000 full- and part-time postal jobs;
Lead to pension cuts;
Weaken workers’ position in upcoming contract negotiations;
Require the USPS to pre-fund workers’ compensation by $17 billion, further
strangling USPS finances;
Permit the USPS to close and consolidate mail processing facilities after two
Allow the Postal Service to further reduce service and delivery standards;
Eliminate Saturday delivery after 2017;
Eliminate door-to-door mail delivery for new businesses and households, and
Expose injured workers to impoverishment once they reach retirement age.
Voting in favor of the bill were: Sen. Carper, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sen. Mark
Pryor (D-AR), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), Sen. Heidi
Heitkamp (D-ND), Sen. Coburn, Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Sen. Kelly Ayotte
(R-NH). Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) voted in favor of
the bill by proxy, but proxy votes were not recorded.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) was the lone recorded no vote. Others who voted no by
proxy were: Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Sen. Rob
Portman (R-OH) and Sen. Rand Paul(R-KY). Proxy votes were not recorded.
Amendments adopted on Feb. 6 would:
Allow firearms in postal parking lots, provided there is no conflict with state
and local regulations;
Permit the Postal Regulatory Commission to overturn plant closures, and
Postpone plant closures and changes to service standards until one year after
the Comptroller General issues a report on USPS compliance with service
“This disastrous bill would severely damage service to the people; weaken the
USPS and make it ripe for privatization, and destroy good jobs throughout the
country,” said APWU President Mark Dimondstein. “The APWU urges senators to vote
against the bill if and when it is brought to the Senate floor for
The Undeserving Rich
Paul Krugman, New York Times
The reality of rising American inequality is stark. Since the late 1970s real
wages for the bottom half of the work force have stagnated or fallen, while
the incomes of the top 1 percent have nearly quadrupled (and the incomes of the
top 0.1 percent have risen even more). While we can and should have a serious
debate about what to do about this situation, the simple fact — American
capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of
middle-class society — shouldn’t be up for argument.
But it is, of course. Partly this reflects Upton Sinclair’s famous dictum: It is
difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his
not understanding it. But it also, I think, reflects distaste for the
implications of the numbers, which seem almost like an open invitation to class
warfare — or, if you prefer, a demonstration that class warfare is already
underway, with the plutocrats on offense.
The result has been a determined campaign of statistical obfuscation. At its
cruder end this campaign comes close to outright falsification; at its more
sophisticated end it involves using fancy footwork to propagate what I think of
as the myth of the deserving rich.
For an example of de facto falsification, one need look no further than a recent
column by Bret Stephens
of The Wall Street Journal, which first accused President Obama (wrongly) of
making a factual error, then proceeded to assert that rising inequality was no
big deal, because everyone has been making big gains. Why, incomes for the
bottom fifth of the U.S. population have risen 186 percent since 1979!
If this sounds wrong to you, it should: that’s a nominal number, not corrected
for inflation. You can find the inflation-corrected number in the same Census
Bureau table; it shows incomes for the bottom fifth actually falling. Oh, and
for the record, at the time of writing this elementary error had not been
corrected on The Journal’s website.
O.K., that’s what crude obfuscation looks like. What about the fancier version?
I’ve noted before that conservatives seem fixated on the notion that poverty is
basically the result
of character problems among the poor. This may once have had a grain of
truth to it, but for the past three decades and more the main obstacle facing
the poor has been the lack of jobs paying decent wages. But the myth of the
undeserving poor persists, and so does a counterpart myth, that of the deserving
The story goes like this: America’s affluent are affluent because they made the
right lifestyle choices. They got themselves good educations, they got and
stayed married, and so on. Basically, affluence is a reward for adhering to the
What’s wrong with this story? Even on its own terms, it postulates opportunities
that don’t exist. For example, how are children of the poor, or even the working
class, supposed to get a good education in an era of declining support for and
sharply rising tuition at public universities? Even social indicators like
family stability are, to an important extent, economic phenomena: nothing takes
a toll on family values like lack of employment opportunities.
But the main thing about this myth is that it misidentifies the winners from
growing inequality. White-collar professionals, even if married to each other,
are only doing O.K. The big winners are a much smaller group. The Occupy
movement popularized the concept of the “1 percent,” which is a good shorthand
for the rising elite, but if anything includes too many people: most of the
gains of the top 1 percent have in fact gone to an even tinier elite, the top
And who are these
lucky few? Mainly they’re executives of some kind, especially, although not
only, in finance. You can argue about whether these people deserve to be paid so
well, but one thing is clear: They didn’t get where they are simply by being
prudent, clean and sober.
So how can the myth of the deserving rich be sustained? Mainly through a
strategy of distortion by dilution. You almost never see apologists for
inequality willing to talk about the 1 percent, let alone the really big
winners. Instead, they talk about the top 20 percent, or at best the top 5
percent. These may sound like innocent choices, but they’re not, because they
involve lumping in married lawyers with the wolves of Wall Street. The DiCaprio
movie of that name, by the way, is wildly popular with finance
types, who cheer on the title character — another clue to the realities of
our new Gilded Age.
Again, I know that these realities make some people, not all of them hired guns
for the plutocracy, uncomfortable, and they’d prefer to paint a different
picture. But even if the facts have a well-known populist bias, they’re still
the facts — and they must be faced.
View the original article on the NY Times site.
Merry Christmas and
Happy New Year
behalf of the myself and the Executive Board of the 480 481 Area Local I wish
all the membership of our local and your families a Merry Christmas and we also
wish a prosperous and happy 2014.
We faced quite a difficult 2013 and I believe we accomplished quite a bit. One
of our primary goals at the beginning of the year were to use the VER and call
center to convert many of our PTF folks to full time.
I believe this concentrated effort was a success with over a dozen PTF converted
across the local and in some cases we were able to get full time conversions
for PTF’s who had been part time for 15 years! No more splits!! No more
unilateral reductions in hours!!! Moving forward into 2014 we will more narrow
our focus on PSE issues and staffing. We will continue to build case(s) in F-1
and F-4 offices that the USPS must begin converting PSE to career.
We are steadfast in our belief that the jobs exist, and given all the excessing
in this area, along with the current cut to the bone staffing in the AO’s
the only logical means of filling jobs is through PSE conversions to career
With the assistance of the National Union we believe we can make the case that
it is time to bring these hard working PSE into the light as career employees.
That is but one challenge we face, our obstacles are many but through a
collective effort we will keep pushing forward.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and God Bless all the membership and families of
Budget Negotiators Threaten
Postal, Federal Pay, Benefits
APWU Web News Article #133-13, Dec. 10, 2013
Congressional budget negotiators are engaged in closed-door deal-making that
could reduce the take-home pay of postal workers and federal employees; reduce
retirement benefits; eliminate postal jobs, and weaken the Postal Service, APWU
leaders have learned.
President Mark Dimondstein is asking all union members — and their
families and friends — to contact their U.S. senators and representatives
and urge them to reject any such deal.
The congressional budget conference committee, which is led by Rep. Paul Ryan
(R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), is considering measures that would require
postal and federal workers to contribute 1.2 percent more to their pensions
— without any corresponding increase in benefits. “That amounts to a
pay cut, pure and simple,” Dimondstein said.
Conferees are also entertaining proposals to change the basis for calculating
retirement benefits from employees’ “high three” years of
earnings to their “high five” years, which would reduce
In a Dec. 10 letter
[PDF] Dimondstein urged House and Senate leaders of both parties to reject
any such measures.
“These outrageous proposals are just the most recent examples of the
hypocrisy of those who refuse to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy
individuals but are willing to solve the nation’s deficit on the backs of
working people — America’s postal and federal employees,” he
wrote on Dec. 10.
APWU Legislative and Political Director John Marcotte also condemned the
proposals. “This is a back-door tax increase on postal and federal
workers,” he said. A Dec. 9 letter to Sen. Murray and Rep. Ryan [PDF],
signed by the APWU and 30 other postal and federal unions and management
associations pointed out the postal and federal workers are the only
constituency who would be taxed under the proposed budget.
USPS Targeted Too
Postal unions are also are deeply concerned by reports that budget conferees are
considering proposals to eliminate Saturday delivery, which would weaken the
U.S. Postal Service, eliminate tens of thousands of jobs, and derail the
agency’s fledgling recovery.
“As you know, the Postal Service does not contribute to the deficit,
receives no taxpayer money, and has recently shown an operating surplus,”
Dimondstein said in his letter to Pelosi.
“Congress can best support the USPS by eliminating the mandate of the
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which requires the USPS to
pre-fund healthcare benefits for future retirees — a burden no other
government agency or private company bears. To strengthen the USPS, Congress
also must protect service standards and allow the USPS to offer new services
that will create new sources of revenue,” he said.
Click here to get a written letter to send to your representative –
all you have to do print it, use the link below to find their address and drop
it in the mail. Please be sure to use their local address.
Get all the elected representative contact information you need at: http://capwiz.com/apwu/home/
Time to be heard –
Roscoe Woods - President
The Retirement Deficit
Hello Everyone -
While reading some labor blogs today I stumbled on the article noted below. I
found it interesting because it does bring into the light the core reason
corporate America wants to do away with a program that has benefitted countless
millions and for the most part is probably benefitting most of our parents.
I preface the article below with a couple of definitions found in the on-line
version of the Merriam-Webster Standard Collegiate Dictionary:
Social: of or relating to people or society in general
Security: the state of being protected or safe from harm
So following the great depression our government passed a law that was designed
to keep society in general safe from harm, the segment of society protected is
our seniors and the harm they are protected from is a life of abject poverty if
you lose your job when you are 62 years or older.
It protects you in case you were fortunate enough to make enough money to invest
in the stock market over the years you worked and then it crashes, (like in the
great depression) or banks fail (see the Savings and Loan debacle of the
80’s and the most recent bank failures in the last 4 years) and you lose
all your savings the “social security” (net) we have provides a bottom that
ensures you ought to be able to at least put a roof over your head and feed
With tongue in cheek I say – what a horrible idea this was. The biggest problem
with social security is it is only a tax on the low and middle class, after a
certain point wages are exempt from this tax, so those who earn in excess of
$113,700 a year cease paying this tax on those earnings and yet are still able
to collect when they hit age 62.
I read the article below and thought I’d share.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all of you. God Bless you, your families
and all those you hold dear.
The Retirement Deficit
Many of America’s CEOs don’t think we're “entitled” to a secure retirement.
By Sam Pizzigati
Deck the halls, this holiday season, with scenes of hunger.
Struggling families all across America now have less food on their tables.
Budget cuts that kicked into effect November 1 have lowered the nation’s average federal food stamp
benefit to less than $1.40 per person per meal.
Austerity American-style is squeezing elsewhere as well, from Head Start for
kids to Meals on Wheels for seniors, and more cuts are looming, as lawmakers on
Capitol Hill near still another budget deliberation deadline, this one midway
The next federal program in the crosshairs? Maybe the biggest of them all:
Average Americans, of course, don’t want Social Security
cut. If anything, average Americans stand more committed than ever to keeping
Social Security whole — and for good reason. Social Security currently stands as
America’s only retirement bedrock.
Not too long ago, pensions also routinely delivered retirement security. But our
corporations have cut back on traditional pensions. In 1980,
89 percent of Fortune 100 companies guaranteed workers a “defined
benefit” at retirement. The rate last year: only 12 percent.
Companies have replaced traditional
pensions with 401(k)s, and many firms don’t even match employee 401(k)
contributions. The predictable result? The nation’s “retirement
deficit” — the difference between what Americans have saved up for
retirement and what they need to maintain their standard of living once retired
— now totals $6.6 trillion, says Boston College’s Center for
So, amid all this retirement insecurity, who actually thinks that cutting Social
Security would be a good idea? The big push for cutting Social Security is
coming from America’s “corporate statesmen.”
These corporate leaders — the nearly 200 CEOs who run the influential Business
Roundtable and the over 135 chief execs who bankroll the lobby group known as
“Fix the Debt” — seldom ever mention “Social Security
benefits” and “cuts” in the same sentence. They speak instead
in euphemisms. The nation, they intone, cannot afford the current level of
In the name of “saving” Social Security for future generations,
these CEOs are urging Congress to enact “reforms” that range from
lowering the annual Social Security inflation adjustment to raising the Social
Security retirement age to 70.
These two changes, point out Sarah Anderson of the Institute
for Policy Studies and Scott Klinger of the Center for Effective Government,
would slice the average Social Security beneficiary’s lifetime benefits by
about 20 percent.
America’s CEOs, Anderson and Klinger note in a new report, don’t need Social
Security. They already have ample retirement security without it.
In fact, these CEOs are sitting on the biggest retirement bonanza in modern
human history. The retirement accounts of Business Roundtable CEOs currently
average $14.6 million, enough to pay out a $86,043 monthly benefit once they
The typical American worker within 10 years of retirement, by contrast, now has
only enough in saved-up personal retirement assets to generate a monthly
retirement payout of just $71.
Why are so many CEOs driving so hard to cut Social Security? One reason: The
corporations these CEOs run don’t pay much in the way of corporate taxes
today. They want to pay even less — and the less the federal government spends
on Social Security and other “entitlements” like Medicare, the less
pressure on lawmakers to seriously tax corporate income.
CEOs also have a personal reason to want to see Social Security cut. Americans
this year pay Social Security tax on only the first $113,700 of paycheck income.
This tax ceiling rises each year with inflation.
But if we eliminated the ceiling entirely — and taxed the paychecks of CEOs and
other high-income taxpayers at the same rate as the paychecks of average workers
— 95 percent of the expected Social Security budget shortfall over the next 75
years would disappear.
America’s CEOs don’t particularly care for this sensible approach to
fixing Social Security’s fiscal future. They’d much rather just ruin
Social Security for the rest of us.
View the original article on the OtherWords site.
APWU Wins Call Center Level
And Pay Arbitration
It’s The Gift That Keeps On Giving
By Kevin Osak - Clerk Craft Director
The word is out, and we won! The A.P.W.U. gets justice for the 1100 call center
clerks. The level 4, 5, & 6 jobs now become level 6, 7 & 8. That means everyone
working at the call centers will get a 2 level upgrade and a nice raise.
Arbitrator Stephen B. Goldberg’s summary of the award:
The Postal Service violated Article 19 by failing to follow the procedures of
ELM 233.2 in relying on private sector wage comparisons to rank the Customer
Care Agents at Levels 4, 5, and 6, rather than at Levels 6, 7, and 8, found to be
appropriate by the OE Department, which applied ELM Section 233.2. Contrary to
the arguments of the Postal Service, its reliance on private sector wage
comparisons was not justified by the Postal Reform Act or the alleged overall
intent of the 2010 Agreement to insource work to the APWU bargaining unit only
when bargaining unit employees can perform that work at a cost equal to or less
than private sector employees.
As an appropriate remedy for its violation of Article 19, the Postal Service
will be directed to place all Customer Care Agents, Tier 1; Customer Care Agents,
Tier 2; and Customer Care Agents, Lead, at Levels 6, 7, and 8, respectively. The
employees in these positions shall also be made whole for lost pay and benefits
resulting from their improper position rankings.
The increases in pay are as follows:
Level 4 to level 6
From $25.73 an hour to $26.72
That’s a $ 0.99 raise or an extra $2059.00 a year
Level 5 to level 7
From $26.20 an hour to $27.29
That’s a $1.09 raise an hour or an extra $2253.00 a year
Level 6 to level 8
From $26.72 an hour to $27.89
That’s a $1.17 raise an hour or an extra $2430.00 a year
This award is upwards of 2 million dollars, and it’s the gift that keeps
on giving. Every year that the call center employee’s work, means that
they will all make a combined $2 million more a year. This is a huge victory for
the A.P.W.U., and the Call Center employees. I see the Call Center
employees on a weekly basis, and they are hardworking, dedicated and
deserve what they got and then some. The job they have is ever changing, and it
keeps piling on more and more and more. Each month it seems that management adds
more duties, so not only have the employees earned the higher levels, but
they also have earned the extra money.
Congratulations to everyone who worked hard for this momentous victory. I would
like to thank everyone at the National A.P.W.U., for their hard work and
dedication for not only this victory, but for all the hard word they have done
through the years.
I would especially like to thank President Roscoe Woods, CCC Stewards Lucy
Morton (now retired), and Lorinda Miller who went above and beyond with their time and
I would also like to thank the hard working A.P.W.U. Members of the Troy
Customer Call Center. Thank you for your trust, you support, and your membership
in the A.P.W.U.
To the non-members it is time to stand up, and join the Union that has not only
proven itself, time and time again, but is out there working daily for your
We have shown you that we are representing you, and now it’s time to stand
up and join us.
See Lorinda Miller, Allen Coin, or Chief Steward Eric Neal for an 1187 to join.
A short note from President Woods –
How this award gets implemented will be the subject of further negotiations at
the national and local levels.
We will keep you all informed and we will work diligently to ensure the
arbitrators award is complied with in its entirety.
We ask for your patience as we do this.
I echo Kevin’s congrats to all involved, as you are aware we sent our own
to DC to offer input and assist HQ and it was this collective team effort that
led to the obvious outcome.
Mark Dimondstein Wins Presidency
His Team Wins Most Offices
Elizabeth Powell Wins as Secretary-Treasurer
Kaczor Wins Health Plan Director
Mark Dimondstein was elected the new president of the American Postal Workers
Union in a hotly-contested race that ended Oct. 7. His “Members
First” team won most of the offices they sought, defeating incumbents.
The exceptions were incumbents Liz Powell, who was re-elected
Secretary-Treasurer in a three-way race, and William Kaczor, who was re-elected
Health Plan Director. The union mailed 195,509 ballots to union members; 48,909
envelopes were returned.
“I hope everyone will get behind the new
administration,” said outgoing President Cliff Guffey. “We have
tough times ahead and we’re going to need unity.” Dimondstein
was not available for comment.
Running on Dimondstein’s Membership Team slate and winning were: Debby
Szeredy for Executive Vice President, Tony McKinnon for Industrial Relations
Director, John Marcotte for Legislative/Political Director, and Anna Smith for
Organization Director. Also running with Dimondstein and winning were Kennith
Beasley for Southern Region Coordinator and Clint Burelson for Clerk Division
Twenty-four offices were contested, including Maintenance Assistant Director, 11
National Business Agent spots and three Retiree National Convention Delegates.
Unofficial results are posted below. Winners are denoted with an asterisk;
incumbent officers are denoted by “(I)” appearing after their name.
Certified results are expected in the next several days and will be posted at
www.apwu.org. Results also will appear in the next issue of The American Postal
The newly-elected officers begin three-year terms on Nov. 12. A swearing-in
ceremony will be held Nov. 7.