The Reversions: A Winning Case That Was Never Passed On
Leadership decisions affect both our union’s finances and our ability to represent members. When steward training was sidelined, unnecessary spending followed — and our grievance-handling strength declined.
$100,000 Spent — And the Training Never Happened
Under Bob’s direction, the union devoted enormous internal resources to handling San Diego Installation Reversion grievances on the union clock, even though the Collective Bargaining Agreement allows this work to be performed on the Postal Service clock.
In other words, the Postal Service could have been paying for the time spent enforcing the contract. Instead, union funds were used.
Our Vice President demonstrated that these grievances could be won. She personally handled the reversion cases and achieved a perfect record.
But instead of allowing her to fulfill her constitutional responsibility to train stewards and share that successful strategy, she was directed to continue processing the cases herself.
Nearly $100,000 in union funds was spent handling these cases internally while the union failed to build the training needed to sustain those victories.
Today, stewards who were never properly trained are responsible for these grievances—and cases that were once consistently being won are now being lost.
Union money was spent. Knowledge was never shared. And the victories stopped.
A $100,000 Experiment
President Bob Waterhouse also made the decision to place another steward on the union clock full-time, dedicating that steward’s work entirely to catching up on grievances across several stations. When salary and benefits are considered, this decision cost the union approximately $100,000.
Once again, this work could have been performed on the Postal Service clock, as the Collective Bargaining Agreement allows stewards to handle grievance work while on paid time from the employer. Instead, the financial burden was placed directly on the union and its members.
Under Bob’s direction, this steward was allowed to begin each workday at home for several hours to “check the computer,” rather than reporting to the union office as other union employees are required to do.
The strategy produced questionable results, and the outcomes were ultimately not strong enough for Bob to support continuing the program into a second year.
In another instance, a steward was paid approximately $5,000 in union funds to process procedural grievances — work that could also have been performed on the Postal Service clock. The results of those grievances remain unclear at best, raising further questions about whether the expenditure produced any meaningful benefit for the membership.
Taken together, these decisions follow the same pattern seen in the handling of the reversion grievances: union funds were spent on work that could have been performed on the Postal Service clock, while the long-term capacity of the steward corps was left no stronger than before.
Vacation or Union Work?
Another concern raised by members involves President Bob Waterhouse’s attendance and time reporting while on vacation.
On several occasions, Bob has taken vacation time while traveling out of town but has simultaneously reported that he was still “working” for significant portions of that time. When union officers report work time, those hours are paid with union funds provided by the membership.
Members reasonably expect transparency when union funds are being used to compensate officers for their time. When someone is officially on vacation and out of town, yet still reporting substantial work hours, it raises understandable questions about how that time is being recorded and what work is actually being performed.
Union leadership should hold itself to the same standards of accountability and transparency that it expects from everyone else.
Members Deserve Better
Union members work hard for their paychecks — and for the dues that support this organization. Those funds should be used carefully, transparently, and in ways that strengthen the union’s ability to represent its members effectively.
When leadership decisions repeatedly place unnecessary financial burdens on the union, members have every right to ask questions and demand better stewardship of their dues.