NPA Mitigation Just Doesn't Work!

NPA Mitigation Just Doesn’t Work!
By Dee Perez
NAPS New York Area Vice President

By now, those who have filed a mitigation case to dispute their NPA either have had it approved or rejected. The USPS does not acknowledge this vital process is broken and is not set up as a fair evaluation to determine if “you” are correct in your mitigation filing. I understand USPS Headquarters will disagree with this column, but it is the truth.

USPS Headquarters must have yearly data indicating the amount of authorized and disapproved mitigation cases, the percentages of approved versus those disapproved and the historical data to share with NAPS Headquarters. Moreover, you should understand that the mitigation process is vital to your current pay structure and retirement high-three years. Naturally, if you have many years to go and you thought you had a solid mitigation case and lost, that’s X amount of money you will be missing forever.

Therefore, the mitigation process matters to everyone who is actively working today. It is up to USPS Headquarters to make the process fair and correct its current flaws. My understanding is this is something that NAPS, not UPMA, will bring up in pay consultations because it’s that important, among many other pay-related concerns. But for the sake of this column, the focus is on correcting the current mitigation process to make it work the right way.

The process is set up on the PFP website. Your mitigation narrative goes to the district manager; if they disapprove it, you get to appeal it on the PFP website, which sends it to your USPS Headquarters area vice president for either approval or disapproval. If the district manager approves it, it’s then reviewed by the same USPS Headquarters area vice president and two USPS Headquarters leaders they select.

My understanding of the process is it could be someone from Finance, HR or any other department. Although these leaders may or may not be well-schooled in the total PFP aspect of the goals you are mitigating, they write their decision, either approving or disapproving the submitted mitigation. Then, the USPS Headquarters area vice president is tasked with the final say.

The problem with that person having the final say is they may miss something because they didn’t develop this process or the goals. Frankly speaking, their focus is not 100% on your mitigation throughout the year. They’re only human, but if they make an error or concur with an error, who loses money for the remainder of their career? You!

Therefore, I believe a solution/resolution is needed to resolve a mitigation case rejected by the USPS Headquarters area vice president. USPS Headquarters should have a process set up similar to the current labor dispute resolution process. Let’s have two experts who have their hands in developing PFP from the USPS Headquarters side of the fence and two NAPS resident officers sit down and review and discuss the disputed mitigation case.

This team then issues a written explanation to the member as to why it was rejected or a congratulatory letter saying it was approved. At least NAPS members would understand that true experts in PFP reviewed their cases and provided factual explanations. Then, everyone can move on.

P.S.: I challenge every branch to sign at least three non-member supervisors or postmasters a month.