The leaders of the nation's two largest postal unions say they will fight a switch to five-day mail delivery and any effort to slash their members' lucrative benefits, and they're concerned about possible post office closures.

In other words: There are big points of disagreement with U.S. Postal Service management on how to rescue the cash-strapped agency.

William Burrus, president of the American Postal Workers Union, and Fred Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, both sat down with Federal Times for wide-ranging interviews earlier this month. Their two unions collectively represent about 415,000 employees — roughly two-thirds of the Postal Service's full-time workforce.

Burrus and Rolando were adamant that the Postal Service should not move to five-day delivery, a proposal they have vehemently opposed since it was introduced in February. Both described the idea as a first step toward "dismantling the Postal Service."

"Somebody will fill that need. Once you relax that, then you set in motion the demise of the monopoly," Burrus said, referring to the Postal Service's monopoly on delivering letters to mailboxes. "You can't make the argument that you're walking away from the monopoly on Saturday but you want it on Friday."

The Postal Service insists it needs the flexibility to move to five-day delivery to deal with plummeting mail volume. The change would save between $1.5 billion and $4 billion annually, according to studies conducted by the Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission, the independent agency that sets postal rates.

Rolando said cutting delivery days in response to dropping volume is a "dangerous precedent."

"If the solution to revenue loss, or the loss in volume, is to cut back services … you can save money, but look what happens to the company," he said.

Switching to five-day delivery — which many members of Congress also oppose — would make it harder for the Postal Service to use its delivery network to generate other sources of revenue, Rolando said.

"You're only saving $2 billion out of $76 billion [in total postal expenses]," he said. "And you lose one-sixth of your ability to serve the public. That's very little savings for a major change. … Long-term, it's the dismantling of the Postal Service."

Union leaders are pleading their case to congressional leaders, in testimony and in private conversations on Capitol Hill, and they urge their members to contact their representatives.

A fundamental disagreement, it seems, is that the union presidents are far more optimistic than postal management that lost mail volume will eventually return.

The Postal Service's five-year forecast predicts most of its lost volume will not come back, according to a Government Accountability Office report released earlier this month.

But Burrus and Rolando think much of the volume will return when the economy picks up — and they argue that cutbacks in service, and proposed facility closures, will hurt the Postal Service's ability to compete.

"They're too focused on losing the household stuff," Burrus said, referring to mail volume lost due to the Internet and e-mail. "Their highest volume ever was in 2006, when the Internet was already a factor … but the volume set records, because the economy was humming well."

Closing post offices

Rolando acknowledged, though, that mail carriers will eventually have to do more than just deliver mail. He suggested a few possible business opportunities, such as delivering prescription drugs to seniors and expanding the "last mile" delivery program in which the Postal Service delivers packages for companies such as UPS and FedEx.

Burrus said he agreed with the Postal Service's plan to assess whether its retail facilities are in the right locations. But he stopped short of endorsing the plan to close as many as 1,000 post offices.

Rolando also expressed concern about the plan. "If it's a reaction to the economy, I think it's shortsighted," he said. "But if they're doing it for the right reasons, then it makes sense."

Members of Congress also oppose post office closings.

Upcoming negotiations

All four major postal unions will renegotiate their contracts in 2010 or 2011, and the Postal Service — which spends 80 percent of its operating budget on labor costs — will certainly push for concessions.

If a postal bill being considered in the Senate becomes law, the Postal Service might find it easier to demand concessions. S 1507 and its House companion, HR 22, would provide the Postal Service with needed relief from some of its retiree health care payments. But the Senate bill — unlike HR 22 — also includes language that changes the way arbitrators handle negotiations over postal contracts. It adds a "financial health" clause, requiring the arbitrators to consider the financial well-being of the Postal Service in setting wages and benefits.

Given the Postal Service's poor financial health, Burrus said he's concerned that S 1507 would wind up hurting union members.

"It depends on the rules of the game," Burrus said of his union's 2010 negotiations. "If S 1507 passes, I would expect an assault on our cost-of-living adjustments, on the no-layoff clause."

The Postal Service hasn't commented on how it will handle the next round of negotiations. Unions in other industries have lost significant benefits in recent years: The United Auto Workers, for example, agreed to cuts in overtime and vacation pay and gave up their dental coverage earlier this year.

Federal Times contacted the presidents of the other two large postal unions, but their presidents refused interviews: Don Cantriel, the president of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, did not respond to repeated requests for comment; and John Hegarty, the president of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, declined an interview.

Tell us what you think. E-mail GREGG CARLSTROM.