“You're Just the Help”: Work Conditions and Economic Hardship in Frontline US Postal Service Jobs

Background: 

This study examines working conditions and economic hardship in front-line US Postal Service (USPS) employment. The public sector has been a significant source of good jobs for marginalized communities, where discrimination is institutionally checked by centralized wage-setting and standardized hiring, disciplinary, and promotion processes.  But public sector employment has come under heavy criticism, including campaigns to de-unionize public workers and heated debates over public sector compensation as public budgets are cut.  In 2011, USPS established a new, lowest tier of jobs, with reduced pay, benefits, and  mobility.  We use data from a February 2016 survey, commissioned by the American Postal Workers Union, complemented with qualitative data from contract negotiation testimony and focus groups, to conduct an exploratory study of income and earnings, schedule variability, receipt of public benefits, and experiences of economic hardship.

Methods:

A random sample (n=771) was drawn from all employees in the new, non-career positions of “Postal Support Employee” (PSE) and two lowest steps of “Career Employee” (CE).  Clustered stratification in the survey calls achieved proportionality by region, sex, age, and race, with a response rate of 40%.  Respondents were asked questions about working conditions, economic well-being, and demographic characteristics. Data were analyzed descriptively, with regression analyses to consider the relative effect of work and employee characteristics. 

Results:

We found mean hourly wages were $15-$15.99 for PSEs and $18-$18.99 for CEs. Using total household income, 8% of respondents were below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL); among full-time PSEs, average income was under 200% of the FPL. We found striking schedule variability, with a mean work-week of 37 hours and a mean fluctuation in hours of 17 hours.  Of all respondents, 62% indicated their hours change week to week, and more than half of those indicated the changes occur after schedules are posted.

In addition to measures of income and schedules, we found nearly half of respondents received at least one public benefit, including SNAP benefits for 20% of full-time PSEs and Free/Reduced School Lunch for 37% of those with children. More than half of all respondents experienced at least one kind of material hardship in the last 12 months, including 37% unable to fully pay a medical bill and 33% unable to see a doctor because of cost.  Controlling for wage and job characteristics, we found women, employees with children, and people of color were significantly more likely to experience economic vulnerability, including living in poverty and higher incidence of public benefits and material hardships. 

Conclusions:

On every dimension of economic well-being, we found a pattern of hardship. In addition to considering wage levels, respondents’ reported schedule variation, scarcity, and unpredictability highlight the importance of scheduling practices when investigating public sector employees’ economic well-being. Our findings are particularly striking for being in the public sector, historically a source of economic security and advancement. The pattern that emerges from the survey data illuminates the consequences to workers when lower-tier, less secure jobs are introduced in the public sector in pursuit of reduced labor costs and flexible schedules.