NAPS Issues Its Call to Action: 'America Depends on an Independent, Viable Postal Service'

2025 NAPS Legislative Training Seminar
NAPS Issues Its Call to Action: 'America Depends on an Independent, Viable Postal Service'
By Karen Balent Young
Editor, The Postal Supervisor

This is an uncertain and volatile time for the Postal Service. Besides the everyday challenges its employees face to deliver for America, there now is the threat to privatize the agency.

In February, there were many press accounts of President Trump considering firing the Postal Service Board of Governors and folding the agency into the Department of Commerce. In March, then-Postmaster General Louis DeJoy opened the doors to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to come in and examine operations.

The threat to the Postal Service is real. Answering the call to action were over 500 NAPS delegates who traveled to Washington, DC, in early April to be postal leaders and send the message to Capitol Hill that the U.S. Postal Service belongs to America’s citizens and unabashedly proclaim, “We are postal proud!”

NAPS Executive Vice President Chuck Mulidore welcomed delegates to the 2025 Legislative Training Seminar Monday morning, April 7, at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, VA.

President Ivan D. Butts introduced the former Executive Board members in attendance. Secretary/Treasurer Jimmy Warden introduced the current board. To honor the memory of recently deceased Northeast Region Vice President Tommy Roma, Warden recited his name three times. He then shared some remembrances of Roma, followed by a video of photos of him over the years.

Mulidore affirmed that Tommy will be missed. He told delegates that, at this LTS, they are here to learn about what is going on in their world—federal and postal.

“If you watch the news, follow social media, there’s a lot going on and we have to be in the middle of it,” he stressed. “The days of sitting back and saying, ‘That will never happen,’ are gone. We have to be players in the game and leaders on the field. That’s what our charge is going to be today and moving forward.”

Mulidore informed attendees of the rally NAPS scheduled for Tuesday at the Capitol. “Saving our Postal Service—this is who we are and what we are all about, what we stand for,” he affirmed. “It doesn’t belong to any president or legislator; it belongs to the people of this country! That’s why the Founding Fathers wrote it in the Constitution.

“We’re going to rally on Tuesday. I want all of you to be there. It puts us where we need to be—right in the front. Ivan came to me and said, ‘I have an idea, I want a rally on Tuesday.’

“Great credit to his idea. I went to Bob and Bob said, ‘Okay, that’s what we’ll do.’ We put it together. Please join us.”

Mulidore reminded NAPS members that none of this advocacy can happen without SPAC—the fuel that runs this engine. “We can’t do what we do without your contributions to fund our efforts on Capitol Hill, but that doesn’t compare to the work you do locally with your lawmakers.

“When we’re done here, you need to establish relationships with your representative and senators when you get back home. You are their constituents; they listen to you.”

Eastern Region Vice President Richard Green went to the microphone and asked for a moment of silence in memory of Charlie Scialla, NAPS’ former DDF provider, who died March 31; he was 95. Mulidore said Scialla and Roma were legendary men who left a legacy with NAPS.

President Ivan D. Butts addressed delegates. He took a moment to laud Roma and Scialla. “We lost two legends,” he said. “They were instrumental in our association’s foundation. Tommy was a tremendous advocate and historian on the board. He always gave you a straight answer and will be sorely missed.

“Charlie, all the years he dedicated to NAPS serving as our DDF provider. He was one of the authors of ELM 650 and left a tremendous legacy as we became a management association. I thank God for both of them.”

Butts told attendees NAPS is so grateful to have them attend this year’s LTS. “To say this is a critical time would be a misjustice to the road ahead of us,” he declared. “Never have we had the forces who would love to see our destruction at the doors.

“We are being called to action; it continues here with our grassroots preparation today. This will prepare us to go to the Hill to educate this Congress on who we are and what we mean to their constituents. We will finish with, hopefully, the largest rally to date in support of our Postal Service. We will show all of America that we are ‘Postal Proud.’ I thank Chuck and the staff for making this a reality on such short notice.”

Butts reminded everyone the Postal Service is one of the most-trusted federal agencies. “America knows we have answered every call to duty—earthquakes, hurricanes—we were there. Wildfires, tornadoes—we were there.

“Elderly citizens hurt in their homes, our employees are out there to take action to save lives. When the pandemic hit our shores and citizens were locked down, we were there with medicines and essential supplies.

“We, the employees, have answered the call. Now, we need America’s help by answering the call to keep the United States Postal Service strong and moving forward. Let’s meet on the Hill and be ‘Postal Proud!’ Thank you for allowing me to serve you.”

NAPS Director of Legislative & Political Affairs Bob Levi proceeded to discuss the current political landscape with LTS attendees. He referenced the lapel pin he was wearing—“Exemplary Performance on Behalf of the Post Office Department”—that was given to his father before the Postal Service was created. “My father walked the picket line in 1970,” Levi said. “That was the last time we faced a situation as consequential as the situation we are facing over the next six months and year—the existential threat to the Postal Service as we know it.”

All NAPS delegates received buttons with the same “Postal Proud” design. “We’re going to wear those gigantic buttons that say, ‘Yes, we are Postal Proud because we deliver for America,’” he affirmed.

“We need to tell the story at the macro level that we deliver to constituents, veterans, senior citizens, isolated citizens, from the bottom of the Grand Canyon to Alaska. Yes, indeed, we are Postal Proud and we are not ashamed of that.”

Levi referred to Elon Musk who, at a conference in San Francisco in March, repeated his position that he wants to privatize the Postal Service. Musk, an admirer of Ben Franklin, compares poorly to the first postmaster general. “This is no way to treat a legacy,” Levi declared.

Former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy invited Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) into the agency. “Beware Musketeers bearing gifts,” Levi intoned. “We all know what happened to the ancient city of Troy and its Trojan Horse.

“For those of us who remember the 1983 movie, ‘WarGames,’ when there was a reported Russian nuclear launch against the United States, Gen. Jack Beringer raised the country’s threat level to DEFCON 2—the second-highest state of military readiness that indicates an immediate threat. I truly believe the USPS now is at DEFCON 2; we have to be prepared.

“We’ve been talking about privatization. The threat is real, even if you are told on Capitol Hill it won’t happen. We need to ensure Congress is on record opposing any attempt to privatize.”

Levi referred to the talk that the USPS would be folded into the Department of Commerce—a 600,000-plus employee agency folded into a 45,000-employee agency. “That’s bizarre,” he noted. “However, Trump said that might not be a bad idea.

“We have to look at that. In case you think there’s no chance, look at what the president has done so far. USAID was created in 1961 as an independent establishment of the executive branch; nine years later the USPS was created as the same type of independent establishment.

“What we have going for us is we have a cherished legacy. We enlist support to protect the Postal Service. Our rally on Tuesday will help elevate the publicity and dialogue.”

Levi pointed out that rural America will be hit hardest if the Postal Service is privatized or folded into Commerce. “What are we going to do?” he posed. “We have to be a postal influencer—share NAPS’ pro-postal content with elected officials and your community.

“Apply your postal expertise and knowledge to sway opinions, policies and decision-making. Also, exploit multiple channels to share content—not just letter-writing and phone calls, but using digital means.”

What is Congress looking at? Levi talked about the leadership vacuum at the Postal Service. DeJoy is gone. Jim Cochrane, CEO of the Package Shippers Association, has been mentioned as a replacement; he is being promoted by many mailers.

There are four vacancies on the postal Board of Governors. Trump could immediately put forth four nominees or he could dismiss the remaining five governors as mentioned in a Washington Post article in March. Performance issues tied to failures in the “Delivering for America” plan are a concern and provide cannon fodder for those who want to dismantle the Postal Service. There is a continued decline in mail volume, with momentous economic uncertainties ahead.

“Elections have consequences,” Levi stressed. “We need to build relationships and maintain them. The late Tommy Roma knew Sen. Chuck Schumer when Schumer was an assemblyman. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) is the majority leader. He has different priorities and budget issues, as well as showing deference to the president. We have to grapple with all this in the next couple months.”

Levi reviewed NAPS’ legislative priorities:

• Protecting postal employees’ earned benefits from congressional cuts. Proposals from the Ways and Means Committee as part of budget reconciliation would increase FERS contributions, change PSHB to a fixed-dollar voucher, change the retirement formula from high-3 to high-5 and eliminate the FERS supplemental payment.
• Fight USPS privatization and efforts to fold it into the Department of Commerce.
• Safeguard the $3 billion vehicle modernization appropriation to purchase new vehicles.
• Promote NAPS’ parochial interests in consultation fairness and MSPB appeal rights.
• Find a fair way for the USPS to fund its pension system and achieve investment fairness.

Legislation NAPS is focused on includes:

• H.Res. 70/S. Res 147—resolutions to keep the Postal Service an independent establishment and oppose privatization
• Budget Reconciliation—fight attempts to slash postal benefits
• H.R. 1560—Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act
• H.R. 1559—Postal Employee Appeal Rights Amendment Act

Levi noted that Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) just introduced H.R. 2174, the so-called Paycheck Protection Act. The bill would ban federal agencies, including the Postal Service, from collecting dues from employees—no more dues-withholding. Moreover, it would prohibit agencies from allowing employees to withhold PAC contributions from paychecks.

“We argue this legislation not only violates established agreements,” he noted, “it also violates the First Amendment—the freedom of speech—as well as the freedom of association, which is a constitutional right.”

In his review of 2024 SPAC, Levi said NAPS participated in 118 House and Senate races and had a 91.5% winning percentage; SPAC supported 15 incoming freshmen members in the House and Senate.

“Contribute to SPAC at your state conventions and branch meetings,” he urged. “Consider signing up for the Drive for 5. We need to make a lot of friends this year.

“There is a certain amount of pride in bleeding postal blue; it’s not just for us and our communities and states—it’s for the entire country. The U.S. depends on a strong, independent and viable Postal Service that will not be destroyed by any individual, president, trillionaire or Wall Street banker. That’s what we are committed to!”

Mulidore pointed out that people have the impression NAPS advocates for bills for a long time; a great example is the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act that repealed the WEP/GPO. “We are a large community of organizations advocating for issues,” he explained. “Sometimes, things have to simmer on the stove for a while before they are ready to be served.

“WEP/GPO repeal got done and has helped a lot of people. That was an effort because we made it every, single year and advocated for it. It took 16 years to get postal reform done. It was an honor for us to be at the White House for both of those bill signings.

“It’s the value your work can do. You may not see it this year, but we’re laying a foundation to get things done.”

Mulidore introduced a video from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) who was instrumental in the WEP/GPO repeal. NAPS has been proud to support her:

“Thank you for your engagement in public policy,” Collins said. “The U.S. Postal Service is an invaluable part of American society and our economy. Since its founding, the Postal Service has brought communities together, kept families and friends in touch and moved our economy forward.

“The USPS is the linchpin of a $1.6 trillion mailing industry. When this vital service was in jeopardy 20 years ago, your association was the very first employee organization to step forward. The insight and support you provided were essential for the bipartisan reform legislation I co-authored.

“For even more years, we have worked to repeal the unfair provisions of WEP/GPO. I held the first-ever Senate hearing in 2003; I know this has been such a priority for your organization. The motto of the Postal Service describes perseverance—that is what you have demonstrated.

“The opposition was entrenched and only yielded because we stuck together and patiently and repeatedly made our case. As a result, on Jan 5, I was so proud to stand with leaders of NAPS at the White House signing ceremony for the Social Security Fairness Act.

“To commemorate that great achievement, I presented to Bob an official copy of that landmark legislation. [Levi unveiled the copy of the bill during Collins’ video message.] As chair of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to monitor Social Security Administration progress to ensure the law is implemented as swiftly and efficiently as possible.

“This conference is a vital part of the legislation process and an opportunity for your experience and knowledge to be brought to bear on issues of importance to our great nation. “Thank you for your involvement. I look forward to our continued work together.”

“Thank you for your involvement. I look forward to our continued work together.”

Mulidore noted that the copy of the bill will be displayed at NAPS Headquarters. It bears an inscription penned by Collins: “To the National Association of Postal Supervisors, with appreciation for your advocacy!”

NAPS Legal Counsel Bruce Moyer greeted NAPS delegates, noting this was his 28th LTS. He thanked them for their public service and everything they do and render for the America people. “Thank you for the friendship, trust and love you have extended me,” he said.

“Truly, NAPS is a family. I’ve come to appreciate that more and more. It’s especially profound with Tommy Roma’s and Charlie Scialla’s deaths. These men were legends and heroes in our association, along with a cadre of many others.

“Take pride in all the accomplishments we have secured as an association. And thanks to our elders and predecessors; we stand on the shoulders of giants.”

Moyer repeated the refrain from Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi”—“You don’t know what you got ’til it’s gone.” “Only in the absence of the Postal Service would some Americans realize what the agency truly represents and how important it is to our economy,” he offered.

“In the context that Bob Levi created, I want to share why I don’t think we are in a constitutional crisis, but on the precipice. When you come to DC and appreciate the history, beauty and power that’s here, you also cannot ignore the great heritage we have, legally speaking.

“It all begins with the Constitution; it supersedes all statutes that Congress passes. The Constitution rests at the pinnacle of our legal structure; we are a nation ruled by law.”

In the past two and a half months, Americans have seen an enormous velocity of change and disruption and its impact on the rule of law. Moyer referenced the VIX index that is used as a barometer for market uncertainty, providing a measure of constant, 30-day expected volatility.

“If some of you have been checking your TSP accounts in recent days,” he said, “we are at one of the highest points ever of the VIX index. And so are we at the highest VIX for the rule of law. It’s a dizzying, bewildering frame of mind; maybe you have the same feeling.

“What is going on? Let me share a little bit about the context as we talk about the dismantling of the USPS as we know it.”

Moyer told attendees there have been 170-plus lawsuits contesting Trump’s executive orders challenging immigration and citizenship and dismantling the USAID, Consumer Federal Protection Board, Department of Education and other agencies, as well as a temporary pause of grants, loans and assistance programs.

The administration is challenging the government structure with restructuring the civil service workforce to be able to fire at will, firing inspectors general, undertaking mass layoffs of probationary employees, rescissions of collective-bargaining agreements with federal employee unions and “remove with cause” leaders of independent agencies—NLRB, MSPB and FLRA, to name a few.

Also, the chairs and members of some of those quasijudicial bodies have been removed by Trump, despite limitations on their removal by statute. This has raised huge constitutional questions that will come before the Supreme Court, Moyer informed delegates.

He discussed two things to consider. First, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. The decision of the Supreme Court in 1935 upheld the independence and actions of Congress in creating independent agencies as part of the executive branch. The court unanimously held the president does not have power to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body for reasons other than what is allowed by Congress.

“This has direct parallels to the Postal Service and its Board of Governors,” Moyer explained. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to fire William Humphrey, a member of the Federal Trade Commission. The court ruled that, despite Roosevelt not liking what was going on in the FTC, members only could be removed for cause: inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.

“Fast forward to 2020,” Moyer said. “In Seila Law v. the Consumer Financial Protection Board, the Supreme Court began to erode the power of Humphrey’s Executor. The court ruled that the Consumer Federal Protection Board (CFPB) structure, with a sole director who only could be terminated for cause, was unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers.

“The court ruled, yes, it is in the executive branch, despite assertions of independence. And, yes, the president can reach in—unitary executive theory. This is a constitutional law theory according to which the president has sole authority over the executive branch.

“It is embodied in Project 2025’s report on the executive branch believing the Constitution says in Article 2 that the power of the executive branch is vested in the president. So, everything within the executive branch, despite any limitations that may be in statute on the removal of that agency’s member, everything reports directly to the president and, therefore, the president has that wide, expansive authority.

“This is the constitutional question of our time: How broad should the president’s authority be?

“Let’s zero in on the postal Board of Governors and Bob’s concerns, which are totally valid about a potential scenario that would involve removal of the board. They might appoint a new PMG, someone the president supports, then the PMG fires the board.

“The PMG can’t do that. There’s a statute in Title 39 that members of the board appointed by the president may be removed for cause. According to unitary executive theory, if you believe it and you believe the dissents filed by Clarence Thomas that Humphrey’s Executor should be overturned, everything reports up to the president.

“Therefore, any statute that says an independent agency’s officials can be removed only for cause is unconstitutional. The court already ruled on Seila Law in 2020; there is a case bubbling up now involving the removal of the head of the NLRB.

“It stands before the Circuit Court of Appeals of DC that has upheld in preliminary ways that firing under the doctrine of Seila Law. That case will be appealed to the Supreme Court and will be the case to watch.

“The court has become more conservative and may be more likely to move the law in this direction that strikes down this type of statute. Keep in mind the postmaster general and deputy postmaster general are appointed by the board—not the president. That is why I suggested the potential scenario that a new PMG is appointed, but then the board is removed and the PMG does the dirty work. Keep that in mind.

“Can independent agency heads be fired? Fired officials argue it was illegal because it violated the statute’s ‘for cause’ protections. Trump argues the government admits violation of statutory provisions, but contends the provisions themselves are unconstitutional. The separation of powers doctrine requires that Congress recognize the executive’s authority to control affairs within the executive branch.

“In other words, subsume the Postal Service into the Commerce Department in order to strengthen the case it is an executive branch agency. It is a volatile time; we’ll see where things go and raise our voices as you already are doing,” he proclaimed.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) was scheduled to be the next speaker, but was unable to attend because of medical treatment. Connolly asked Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) to go in his place.

Beyer greeted NAPS delegates, confirming his appreciation of their service and what the Postal Service means to America. He stressed the importance of thinking of the agency as a service—not a business. “Rural post offices don’t generate revenue,” he offered. “We’re not out there to make a profit. I was happy to sign the letter to not privatize the Postal Service.”

He referred to the idea floated to fold the USPS into the Commerce Department, stating the plan is not only vague, but also illegal. “Article 1 of the Constitution mandates independence,” he affirmed, “and gives you the opportunity to operate on best practices without political interference—a sledgehammer that has put tens of thousands federal works out of jobs; already, 20,000 federal workers have been fired.

“I have great faith in our justice system. If we let Elon Musk and 25-year-olds take over the Postal Service, it will be a disaster. I grew up in a family of civil service. I believe the federal government should be at the forefront of protecting its employees. Studies have shown federal employees always can make more money in the private sector. You give up a lot to come do this.

“From the bottom of my heart, this is one of the important things the federal government does—do people get their mail on time? We constantly are in contact with our local postal supervisors who are good friends to let us know their constraints and what they need.

“On behalf of Gerry and all our Democratic members, we are going to do everything we can to ensure the USPS is strong and you are respected and well-paid. I’ve been a boss for a long time and have found the way you get the most out of your employees is to treat them with respect, listen to them and make them feel included, meaningful and important.

“If they treat you with respect, you will thrive and thank you for supervising with empathy, leadership and serving as good role models. With Gerry, I will do everything to support you in the years ahead.”

Dr. Keith Abouchar, legislative representative for the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—the largest federal employee union in the United States—joined Bob Levi to talk about coalition-building. NAPS is one of the founding members of the Federal-Postal Coalition. Abouchar previously served as a senior policy adviser on then-House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s staff. Hoyer has been an steadfast advocate for postal employees.

Levi: What led you to come to Capitol Hill, then AFGE?

Abouchar: In college, my major was political science. I went to graduate school, then all the way to a PhD. When I was doing my dissertation, I thought maybe I should find out how Capitol Hill works before I go back to the academic world and teach political science; my specialty was supposed to be congressional politics. So, I ended going to what I thought would be a short-term gig on Capitol Hill in 1987 and wound up staying until 2023 because I fell in love with the work.

Levi: What led you to AFGE?

Abouchar: For those of you who follow federal employee politics and issues on Capitol Hill, you’ll know Rep. Steny Hoyer has more federal employees in his congressional district than virtually any member in the House; he’s got almost 80,000 active employees and their family members and countless numbers of federal retirees. So, when he gave me the federal portfolio back in 2003, he told me to use my instincts on this issue.

After following a group of constituents who were so important to my former boss, you learn their issues and working with the organizations that represent them. I developed a very strong relationship with AFGE, as well as other federal unions and postal organizations. Bob introduced me to the postal world. I’ve been following your issues for years.

When I left Congress after the last Democratic Congress in December 2022, I spent six months out of office, relaxing and taking stock, when AFGE came to me and indicated that I might be useful to them.

Levi: Let’s talk about coalitions—the commonality of the issues members of AFGE have and the people in this room have working for the Postal Service.

Abouchar: Some of our issues are the same, some aren’t. The Postal Service is organized differently; it’s covered under a different title of U.S. Code than the rest of the federal workforce. But there still are a lot issues that unite the postal realm and non-postal federal employee realm.

We’re all interested in retirement, health care and defending the integrity of public service the government delivers, whether postal or non-postal services. Those are the issues that really tie us together. We obviously believe in the integrity of collective bargaining to the extent it exists in the federal workforce. We all know that federal employees can’t strike, can’t negotiate wages. But they can negotiate workplace conditions and the grievance process.

All these things unite us 100%, but there are issues that make the postal and non-postal world allies in a shared cause.

Levi: Since you’ve come over to AFGE, you’ve participated in meetings of the Federal-Postal Coalition; working for Hoyer, you were on the other end of our lobbying activities. Talk about the importance of the coalition of federal and postal employees working together to lobby and influence public policy.

Abouchar: The best example is the Postal Service reform law enacted in 2022. Bob and your organization were critical in passing that bill. I was working for Hoyer then; we had been working on postal reform for years. That would not have gotten done if the postal forces alone had been pushing for it—not to say they were not the most important voice.

That was a coalition in action. It was other federal unions getting involved because they wanted to make sure that some of the health care changes being contemplated were crafted in such a fashion that it didn’t undermine the integrity of the federal retirement system generally.

Having the non-postal federal associations involved in the advocacy of postal reform was very helpful because they played an important role addressing the health care issue to make sure whatever that fix was going to be did not cause unintended consequences to the integrity of the federal retirement system.

We worked together, the federal-postal piece, to make sure whatever we are advising Congress to do on this, we need to make sure they craft the retirement piece “just so” so it doesn’t cause unintended consequences that hurt not just postal workers down the line when they retire, but also non-postal federal workers.

That’s just one example of a coalition. There were other issues, as well. The federal union associations—postal and non-postal—worked in conjunction with many of the business community associations who were interested in a healthy, vigorous Postal Service. Why? Because they depend on the Postal Service.

You heard Rep. Don Beyer describe how important mailed advertising was to his car dealership in Falls Church. The business community had a very keen interest in postal reform.

The pharmaceutical industry also had a keen interest in postal reform because many medications are delivered by the USPS. That’s an example of coalitions in action you would not necessarily think of as a coalition. You would not think your organization would have much in common with private industry—not that you don’t care about private industry—but you don’t wake up every morning thinking, “Why should I care about a Fortune 500 company?”

Well, Fortune 500 companies depend on what you deliver every day. They could not exist without the Postal Service; even Tesla has to mail stuff. In a very constructive way, the coalition was not just who you think would work together—postal unions and associations—but non-postal federal associations and the business community working together.

To some extent, advocacy groups that depend on the Postal Service—First Amendment and social justice groups—care about the agency. They mail so much of their advocacy materials. Also, non-profit organizations; they benefit from the best deal in town.

With no disrespect to the postal world, I’m not sure that was enough heft to get postal reform across the finish line. It took a larger and more diverse group of associations and businesses to really advocate to Democrats and Republicans alike on Capitol Hill that this needs to be done if we’re going to keep our economy healthy, deliver what the Constitution says we need to deliver and the Postal Service to be successful for the next several decades.

Levi: Waiting in line at the White House for the presidential bill-signing for WEP/GPO reform, I talked to the American Federation of Teachers union president who said if not for the police and firefighter groups around the country joining—even with the coalition we established on our own—it would not have been possible to get the overwhelming majority to sign on to a discharge petition to get the bill out of the Ways and Means Committee and onto the House floor.

Coalitions grow; they don’t shrink—that’s the success in pushing.

Abouchar: And here’s why coalitions matter and it’s a great example. Given all the component parts of a coalition, the broader it’s going to appeal to a different type of member of Congress. The reason why this Republican Congress—and I’m not being political—the reality is the Republican majority currently runs Congress. WEP/GPO was able to get across the finish line because firefighters and law enforcement were strongly in favor of that reform.

Had those two components not been part of the coalition, I doubt it would have gotten done because the rest of the coalition wasn’t very sympathetic as far as Republican members of Congress were concerned. It’s not that they don’t care about education, but they are not real fans of the teacher unions. For teachers and teacher unions going to Capitol Hill and saying, “Please do WEP/GPO reform,” that would not really have moved any House or Senate Republicans to say, “That makes sense.”

Having law enforcement and firefighters—first responders telling them why it’s needed—moved them. The broader your coalition, the more chance of success.

With postal reform, it was really the business community that moved House and Senate Republicans to get behind the reform. With all due respect to the postal unions and associations, your average House or Senate Republican may not really care what a union has to say about postal reform. But if a local car dealership says, “I need a good Postal Service to get my business on a successful footing,” they’ll listen.

That’s why you don’t want just like-minded people as part of your coalition. You want to think outside the box. You may not like an association 364 days of the year, but, on this day, you have something in common and need to work together to get the job done.

Levi: Let’s come back to parochial issues. Over the next month or so, we’re going to confront something we’ve worked on over the years and many times, Keith, the concept of a reconciliation bill. There have been battles over the past 20 years, no matter who was in control, but this year is unique.

What is the importance of the coalition of federal and postal employees this particular year in confronting the threat posed by reconciliation?

Abouchar: It’s existential in many ways. Parties in control tend to use reconciliation because it’s easier to pass big legislation if they can keep their people in order. But they’re having a pretty tricky time right now getting on the same page with the Senate and the House; they have different plans.

Regarding a reconciliation agenda, they need it enacted by the end of the year from their perspective. The bottom line is because they need to pay for the tax cuts or the extension of the tax cuts plus a bunch of new tax cuts they’re hoping to enact by Dec. 31, they need to offset those with savings somewhere.

And one of the places we know they are going to try and seek savings is federal retirement benefits—postal and non-postal—FERS especially.

They’ve told us they’re going to seek at least $50 billion in savings from federal employee programs. Those programs are going to be FERS, all retirement-related and possibly insurance, as well—FEHB. They’re going to jack up the employee contribution to FERs and probably going to jack up the premium that federal employees pay for FEHB.

Those are the minimum of what they will seek to increase to find $50 billion in savings. The expectation is that everybody in FERS, whenever they were hired—if reconciliation succeeds as Republicans want—will pay at least 4.4% for their FERS. They could pay more; we don’t know if they will stop at 4.4%.

Right now, new hires pay 4.4%. Those hired after 2014 pay 4.4%. Those hired before 2013 pay 0.8% and those hired between 2013 and 2014 pay 3.2%. At a minimum, we expect the Republican reconciliation bill will put everyone at 4.4%, whenever you were hired. It could go higher, but, at a minimum, it will be 4.4%.

FEHB and PSHB, we don’t know what that premium might look like, but we can expect it to go higher. They also may change the way the FERS retirement is calculated, going from the high-3 annual income to the high-5, which will have the effect of reducing the FERS annuity.

They also may try to get rid of the FERS supplement; that may not affect a lot of people in this room. But for certain classes of federal employees who retire at 55—generally law enforcement, air-traffic controllers—there’s a supplement that carries them through to Social Security age. These all are on the chopping block and almost certain to be cut—it will be scored as cuts, but there will be increased costs on you.

The reason advocacy at this point is very important is they’re having a tough time on Capitol Hill getting their reconciliation blueprint passed, much less the hard work of actually specifying what is going to be cut. But they are going to do everything they can to get reconciliation done because tax cuts will spring back to 2016 levels if they don’t get it done by the end of the year.

They are going to go after the programs I just talked about. Everybody in this room has a vested interest. Your take-home income will go down if Republicans in their reconciliation scheme succeed. You will be paying way more for your FERS and PSHB, in many cases, than you are now. Your net take-home pay will go down by as much as 5%.

Levi: One of the issues I touched on—and Bruce Moyer did more of a deep dive on—is the administration’s decision to basically gut federal agencies. You either eliminate them outright or reduce the workforce with such a magnitude that the agencies will be incapable of conducting their missions.

What implication do you think that has or could have on the Postal Service? Why does this make a difference for the entire federal-postal community, if it does?

Abouchar: The implication for the Postal Service is, what?

Levi: It’s around 525,500 employees, give or take.

Abouchar: We’ve seen since Jan. 20 the assault on non-postal agencies in the federal government—getting rid of employees in a legally dubious manner. Congress funds these agencies with the expectation they will have enough employees to actually spend the money in the way Congress intends.

With the Postal Service, I think it’s long been the goal of certain members of Congress—again, all Republican—there’s not a Democrat who supports privatization of the Postal Service. It’s been the goal of many key Republicans in the House and Senate to privatize the USPS or at least diminish the role it plays in delivering services to the American people.

If this administration can tamper with the organization of the Postal Service and make employment at the Postal Service so unattractive people quit and it’s easier to fire federal postal workers, they essentially are going to initiate a death spiral. The fewer postal employees you have, the less efficient and successful deliveries will be, right? The more mistakes will be made.

You need people to deliver the mail. You can’t use a robot or AI to do it. If you set a course for failure of the Postal Service, you are planting the seeds of destruction such that the American people will say, “My postal service has really declined in the last year, why is that?”

Then you create the conditions for Republicans to say, “The Postal Service is failing, so let’s just outsource it to Pitney Bowes or whoever wants to take on this work.” Not that they’re legally allowed to do that now.

We’re in a situation now where the law really doesn’t matter. I think this is an administration that’s willing to push the law—even go beyond it—in order to achieve its purposes. It doesn’t care if there is a possibility of breaking the law. The administration is pursuing an agenda that is, frankly, lawless in many situations.

I think the courts will eventually say many of the actions the administration has undertaken are lawless. But I think we can expect something along those lines with the Postal Service. We’ve seen the announcement of or at least the rumor they were going to put the Postal Service under the Commerce Department.

As Rep. Beyer said earlier, it’s unconstitutional. I certainly don’t think it’s constitutional. The Constitution clearly establishes a postal service; it’s existed since Ben Franklin was postmaster general. I don’t see how you can do that, but if you can do that, if you move it to the Commerce Department, Secretary Lutnick can say, “We don’t have a postal board any more, I’m going to unilaterally say we’re going to have a hiring freeze, we’re going to get rid of anybody hired in the last year, probationary employees.” He’ll use whatever leverage he has in existing law to get rid of as many employees as possible and say, “See, they can’t do their jobs so we’ll outsource this stuff.”

When you create a problem, sometimes you do it on purpose so you solve it the way you want to solve it. That’s kind of what is happening here.

Levi: We work together in Washington at the leadership level. For example, President Ivan D. Butts participated in a rally with the labor unions about three weeks ago. Your president came over and addressed the rally. We’re having a rally tomorrow. Your president is coming over to address us.

How can we create coalitions like that where we work together at a local level? We do it at the federal level; we have a structure. Have you given consideration as to how we can do this back home?

Abouchar: Obviously you are in every single congressional district in every state. You are the supervisors; I don’t know how closely you work day to day on the local level with carriers, the processors. Oftentimes your issues are the same, but not all the time; you are the supervisors.

There’s always going to be some inherent differences.

Levi: As Executive Vice President Chuck Mulidore indicated at the APWU rally up in New York, there are disagreements we will have on the workroom floor, but when it comes to the very existence of the Postal Service, there is no daylight.

Abouchar: Yes, and that’s important. It’s actually activating on the local level; you all are working in the same place, generally. It’s working with that immediate group of people. It’s also reaching out to the businesses in your communities that depend on your services.

Going back to Rep. Beyer with his car dealership. In every state, there is an auto dealers’ association; there’s a national auto dealers’ association. There’s a chamber of commerce in most cities and states—all organizations that are interested in a healthy, successful Postal Service.

They are not at all interested in reinventing the Postal Service. They have enough to be worried about rather than who is going to deliver their advertising or checks to the bank or whatever. It’s reaching out to local businesses.

It’s not knocking on every door asking, “Will you help us?” Rather, it’s working with local associations. I think that’s the way to build those local coalitions that will catch the attention of the local member of Congress.

It’s not just going in as a postal group, but, again, as we did with postal reform and WEP/GPO. “Hey, I never thought you guys worked together.” That automatically triggers in a member’s mind, “That’s kind of interesting. I thought you just delivered the mail. I never realized you had these allies. I never thought of you as allies of the business community that I care about.”

On the local level, it’s a little harder. Not every city has a chamber of commerce or a dealership association, but every state does. Maybe the starting point is reaching out to your state associations in the business community and asking who their representative is on the local level. Pitch to them working together on holding fast against making changes to the Postal Service.

Those advocates in the business community don’t care about FERS or your retirement, but they are going to care about the effect those changes will have on federal employees or the postal workforce to deliver. They care about whether there are enough people to deliver their mail.

And when they find out it won’t, that’s when they are going to say, “We better get involved here. The last thing I need right now in a world of business uncertainty is a Postal Service that can’t do what I need to reach my customers.” I don’t know if that makes sense.

Levi: That makes absolute sense. We have our marching orders when we go home from Washington.

Abouchar: I worked for a member of Congress who worked with members on both sides of the aisle in a cordial, professional way. No one should be treated as an enemy. You never know; today’s enemy could be tomorrow’s ally. That’s not to say you have to agree with them.

There are certain people you never want to work with for moral or ethical reasons. Somebody who is ideologically different from your issues just may be someone who can work with you on that one issue you both care about.

Always keep the door open, except when moral or ethical considerations are at stake with your own conscience. I would never advocate to do business with somebody with whom you are ethically or morally opposed. But most people in this country, you may not agree with them most of the time, but you can find a way to work with them without compromising your morals or ethics.

But that’s the red line, my boss always says. If you have to cross that red line into compromising your moral or ethics, stop. But if that’s not the case, keep the door open; you just never know.

Levi: Thank you so much, Keith.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) warmly greeted NAPS delegates and said he appreciates the robust greeting he received. “As I was walking in, the conversation was about the value the Postal Service provides to the American people,” he offered. “Everyone knows that it happens because you help move America.

“While I show up as a friend, friends also share all the information they know because they want people to be informed. The most important thing about almost everything is stability, including the Postal Service—where people understand their job and how to make it work. I know there are people in this room who have opinions about their workplace and what they do and devote themselves to it. They want it to continue in ways they see fit.

“I hear from customers and postal employees. There are parts of the country growing so rapidly, it’s hard to stay up with the needs. I represent a district that is adding 1,200 people a day. It’s stressing the infrastructure—roads, highways and jobs. But we have to find a way to make it work.

“Adding a lot of people will require the Postal Service to take on additional work. We have to have enough employees to do the work and make sure the USPS is prepared. People will have to work together.

“I am in the middle of change occurring as a result of the whirlwind of the new administration. The president is moving so fast, not even the media can stay up; members of Congress are not in the know. We need to answer questions from constituents regarding where we are going, how we are going to get there and what it will look like.

“Members of Congress are expected to have that insight and extrapolate that to you, but, today, I am without that ability. I still showed because I am your friend and because you have come to seek answers. We both know there has been an experiment we’ve gone through with Louis DeJoy. It was an experiment because we also asked where we were headed, how we would get there and what you wanted it to look like.

“We asked those questions and the answer came back, ‘Trust me. We’re headed the right way.’

“I went to a south Houston processing facility where 100 18-wheelers had dumped their mail. The team went through about four months taking pieces out one at a time. They did their job, but they were placed in a circumstance in which they did not want to be.

“But I did not hear any complaints. I heard, ‘We have an obligation. We’re not doing well and we’re pitching in.’ You and your team did one heck of a job.

“Chuck and Bob see me on a regular basis. I will be places and postal employees come up and greet me. I showed up today to say thank you. I do not have an answer for you; I’m not sure there is an answer.

“But I can tell you I understand the value and proposition necessary because I represent 14 counties in Texas and we are not going to go without service to a bunch of rural people. This is the same way it is in lots of districts. You and I both know we have to find an accommodation to make it work, whatever we do.

“I am worried about the price of a stamp and our employees working excessive overtime. We have to make the system work where a customer knows what we’re doing. We have to have a Postal Service that survives and is proud of what it does.

“Thank you for what you do on a daily basis and sticking together and providing feedback to each other to make the system work and to have a team. Stick together; it’s important to be heard together. I admire you and place high value in you and those back home and for you to come to Washington expecting to hear news.

“Members of Congress know the outcome must be favorable to the Postal Service and its customers. I believe we can get there. For those of you who know what service is and who do that work and want to see in every single circumstance your team look well and put in a position where they can perform, that is what I am after.

“I am after the Postal Service to be proud of you, you to be proud of it and for America to gain the value you have. On my behalf, thank you. I want you to know we have the highest admiration for you.”