Workers Slam Post Office Reorganization

As more than 100 angry postal employees converged on City Hall last night, the City Council called on the U.S. government to appoint a congressional commission to investigate widespread delivery problems in the Cambridge mail system.

In a tumultuous meeting that reached its climax when Boston Postmaster Tom Lamft stormed out of the room, the council slammed the postal official's plan to create a Cambridge mail system separate from the Boston office.

Lamft had come to the meeting at the request of the council to discuss ongoing problems with the postal service, which has drawn frequent complaints during the past year for slipshod mail delivery.

Lamft said that the Boston post office system has "made major strides towards improving the quality of mail delivery service in Cambridge" over the past months. To further improve the system, Lamft proposed the creation of a Cambridge Associated Office almost entirely independent of the Boston branch, with its own postmaster.

But as Lamft outlined his plan to restructure the office, the throngs of mail carriers filling City Hall's Sullivan Chamber greeted him with boos and hisses, complaining that the move would strip them of seniority and benefits.

The current delivery problems were caused by management problems which the creation of an associated office would only exacerbate, said Stephen A. Albanese, president of the American Postal Workers Union.

The change would simply heighten the problems by causing postal workers--suddenly faced with loss of their seniority and benefits--to resign en masse, Albanese said. In addition, the Cambridge post master would have to okay all decisions with the Boston office, adding to an already bulky bureaucracy, he said.

"The concept of making Cambridge a separate post office is nothing more than stroking [the public]," Albanese said. "The postal service has become a budget oriented corporation that is more concerned about its bottom line than the level of service it provides."

Lamft listened to a portion of the unionists' arguments before protesting that the Council meeting was "not a forum to discuss management-union disputes." He said that labor issues were an "internal problem" which officials would deal with at a later date.

But when audience members continued their protests, Lamft and two assistants walked out of the meetings. As Lamft exited, Councillor Francis H. Duehay '55 shouted after him: "I deplore your leaving under this situation. I think that the senior postal offical should stay and listen to the public."

Dozens of protesters picketed outside of City Hall before the hearing, chanting "Hell no! No A.O.!" and "Cambridge beware: Protect your postal service!."

Inside the meeting, council members sharply criticized Lamft's proposal, saying it would have no impact on the postal problems.

"We can't expect that you will do this and suddenly service will improve," said Councillor Edward N. Cyr. "We can't just ignore that most of the people involved hate it."

Tom Conville, chief steward of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), said Lamft is advertising the restructuring as "a cure-all for the whole thing" when he should be concentrating on management problems and readjusting carriers' routes.

Albanese said mail service has been deteriorating over the past few years as a result of mismanagement, cuts in funding and growth in delivery routes. "The source of Cambridge's mail problem is top heavy, unaccountable and inept management," he said.