Post Office loses $3.8 Billion. (1 Viewer)

[Parrothead]

Nothing good comes from the Post Office..

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

How much did the military lose?

I see we decided to skip the merely questionable analogies and skip straight to the thoroughly awful ones.

Government agencies aren’t in the business of making money. The military is one example. The Post Office is another. There are plenty more.

I'm pretty sure the Postal Service moved to an explicitly "self-sustaining" "for-profit" model years ago.

 

[Death Bytes]

The USPS, which lost $2.8 billion in fiscal 2008, and $5 billion in 2007, is a self-supporting government agency that receives no tax dollars. It relies solely on the sale of postage and products and services to generate sales.

 

[CrossEyed]

The USPS, which lost $2.8 billion in fiscal 2008, and $5 billion in 2007, is a self-supporting government agency that receives no tax dollars. It relies solely on the sale of postage and products and services to generate sales.

:X

So whose $3.8 billion did they lose?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Shut it down

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Good point. Hmmm....Edit: I guess I would say that just because it has the right do do it doesn't mandate that they have to do it.

Nah, there will always be a post office. Doesn't mean it can't be run more effectively though.

When has the US Postal Service run efficiently? Pony Express days?

 

[Fennis]

The USPS, which lost $2.8 billion in fiscal 2008, and $5 billion in 2007, is a self-supporting government agency that receives no tax dollars. It relies solely on the sale of postage and products and services to generate sales.

:X

So whose $3.8 billion did they lose?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=as8ysmsYt0A8

Revenue Fell

Operating revenue for the year fell to $68.1 billion, compared with $74.9 billion in 2008, the Postal Service said. Total mail volume dropped 12.7 percent in 2009 to 177.1 billion pieces, it said. The recession reduced the volume of periodicals, packages and first class mail, contributing to the decline, the agency said.

This year, mail volume will decline about 11 billion pieces, which would be a 6.2 percent drop, Corbett said.

The agency got congressional permission to fill a budget hole by deferring $4 billion in payments that had been due by Sept. 30 for a retiree benefits trust fund.

The Postal Service will push Congress for another deferral of the $7.7 billion due to the retiree account this year and for permission to cut delivery from six to five days a week, Corbett said.

“The business model, quite frankly, is broken,” he said. “It doesn’t work in a declining volume scenario. It’s becoming much more difficult to manage the organization in the old ways.”

 

[King of Queens]

I know it's tradition to rag on the Post Office, but don't they actually do a good job most of the time nowadays? I pay almost all my bills online, but it's pretty amazing that I can leave an envelope in my mailbox in Maryland on Monday and have it show up anywhere in the country I want it to go in 2 or 3 days, for 42 cents. I can't remember the last time I had a big problem with the Post Office.

I really don't have a problem with the service they do. They've done a good job of, well, doing a good job.But at what price?

42 cents.

The price of a first-class postage stamp has been 44 cents for over six months (went up from 42 cents on May 11, 2009).I recommend the USPS Forever Stamps -- buy them now for 44 cents, and you can use them at any time regardless of future rate increases.

 

[Oh the Humanity]

How much did the military lose?

I see we decided to skip the merely questionable analogies and skip straight to the thoroughly awful ones.

Government agencies aren’t in the business of making money. The military is one example. The Post Office is another. There are plenty more.

I'm pretty sure the Postal Service moved to an explicitly "self-sustaining" "for-profit" model years ago.

Yes and no. The Post Office was reorganized in 1970 to be self sustaining, and moved "off-budget" in the early nineties. Unfortunately no one bothered to change the model from military/governmental to business, expecting it's monopoly to protect it from having to act like a business. Right now it has two main problems keeping it from at least breaking even. (1) It's military "top-down" approach is great if you're trying to kill the customer, but not very good if you are trying to sell them stuff. Specifically, all the "ideas" come from the ivory tower in Washington, and they are uninterested in feedback from the people who actually deal with the customer.(2) They don't have a lot of freedom in setting prices, and in fact prices are dictated as much by political expiedency as financial considerations. Currently the bulk of the PO's mailing is advertising, but because of the clout of direct mail marketers, the Post Office is forced to keep rates low to the point that the Post Office barely makes a profit. The Post Office loses money on 1st Class Mail because unlike a private business the PO can't simply pick and choose what areas of the country they're going to service. If (hypothetically) mail service were to be turned over to the private sector, it would be very unlikely that rural areas would have any service, and a lot of inner-city service would be curtailed as not cost effective. Although the Constitution doesn't specifically mandate a government run Postal Service, it does mandate that service be provided, and if they were to allow the private sector to service profitable areas and confine themselves to the unprofitable ones mentioned, the deficit would be greater

 

[Doctor Detroit]

How much did the military lose?

I see we decided to skip the merely questionable analogies and skip straight to the thoroughly awful ones.

Government agencies aren’t in the business of making money. The military is one example. The Post Office is another. There are plenty more.

I'm pretty sure the Postal Service moved to an explicitly "self-sustaining" "for-profit" model years ago.

Yes and no. The Post Office was reorganized in 1970 to be self sustaining, and moved "off-budget" in the early nineties. Unfortunately no one bothered to change the model from military/governmental to business, expecting it's monopoly to protect it from having to act like a business. Right now it has two main problems keeping it from at least breaking even. (1) It's military "top-down" approach is great if you're trying to kill the customer, but not very good if you are trying to sell them stuff. Specifically, all the "ideas" come from the ivory tower in Washington, and they are uninterested in feedback from the people who actually deal with the customer.(2) They don't have a lot of freedom in setting prices, and in fact prices are dictated as much by political expiedency as financial considerations. Currently the bulk of the PO's mailing is advertising, but because of the clout of direct mail marketers, the Post Office is forced to keep rates low to the point that the Post Office barely makes a profit. The Post Office loses money on 1st Class Mail because unlike a private business the PO can't simply pick and choose what areas of the country they're going to service. If (hypothetically) mail service were to be turned over to the private sector, it would be very unlikely that rural areas would have any service, and a lot of inner-city service would be curtailed as not cost effective. Although the Constitution doesn't specifically mandate a government run Postal Service, it does mandate that service be provided, and if they were to allow the private sector to service profitable areas and confine themselves to the unprofitable ones mentioned, the deficit would be greater

Good info, thanks.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

(2) They don't have a lot of freedom in setting prices, and in fact prices are dictated as much by political expiedency as financial considerations. Currently the bulk of the PO's mailing is advertising, but because of the clout of direct mail marketers, the Post Office is forced to keep rates low to the point that the Post Office barely makes a profit. The Post Office loses money on 1st Class Mail because unlike a private business the PO can't simply pick and choose what areas of the country they're going to service. If (hypothetically) mail service were to be turned over to the private sector, it would be very unlikely that rural areas would have any service, and a lot of inner-city service would be curtailed as not cost effective. Although the Constitution doesn't specifically mandate a government run Postal Service, it does mandate that service be provided, and if they were to allow the private sector to service profitable areas and confine themselves to the unprofitable ones mentioned, the deficit would be greater

I am not sure this is correct. Can you explain to me then how UPS and Fedex are able to handle deliveries to anywhere in the country? I have sent items using these couriers to inner-city and rural places and have never noticed a price difference from their other deliveries.Being a former government employee, I would be very interested in seeing the employee salaries as a percentage of expenditures over the years. Given government salary structure, I am sure it has increased over the years.

 

[dickey moe]

How much did the military lose?

I see we decided to skip the merely questionable analogies and skip straight to the thoroughly awful ones.

New here?

 

[dickey moe]

The problem is that the average postal worker salary is in the area of $50,000 a year. No offense to the postal workers out there but a postal worker shouldn't make more than $10 - $12 an hour......

Pretty much.

 

[Oh the Humanity]

...

(2) They don't have a lot of freedom in setting prices, and in fact prices are dictated as much by political expiedency as financial considerations. Currently the bulk of the PO's mailing is advertising, but because of the clout of direct mail marketers, the Post Office is forced to keep rates low to the point that the Post Office barely makes a profit. The Post Office loses money on 1st Class Mail because unlike a private business the PO can't simply pick and choose what areas of the country they're going to service. If (hypothetically) mail service were to be turned over to the private sector, it would be very unlikely that rural areas would have any service, and a lot of inner-city service would be curtailed as not cost effective. Although the Constitution doesn't specifically mandate a government run Postal Service, it does mandate that service be provided, and if they were to allow the private sector to service profitable areas and confine themselves to the unprofitable ones mentioned, the deficit would be greater

I am not sure this is correct. Can you explain to me then how UPS and Fedex are able to handle deliveries to anywhere in the country? I have sent items using these couriers to inner-city and rural places and have never noticed a price difference from their other deliveries.Being a former government employee, I would be very interested in seeing the employee salaries as a percentage of expenditures over the years. Given government salary structure, I am sure it has increased over the years.

Fed Ex and UPS, because they are private businesses, can, and do, set different rates to ship to and from different places. Although distance is one of the factors in setting rates, it's not the only one. Also the economies of scale that make profitability possible in the delivery of letters and magazines isn't nearly as pronounced in parcel delivery. Unlike letters which are only profitable because you usually have more than one to deliver to each address, each parcel generates it's own revenue. I imagine that employees expenditures are a large percentage of total percentage of total expenditures, which shouldn't be surprising as the employee is the product. A more interesting question, in my opinion, is the ratio of administration (management) costs as a percentage of total costs. One of the by-products of the military mindset is the need to document everything. Right now, because the PO is having monetary problems, there is a push to find ways to cut labor costs, which is fine except it seems, in my opinion, that the amount of manigerial resources expended to find places to cut costs are greater then the savings generated. And meany of their cost cutting measures are areas where they are generating revenue.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

(2) They don't have a lot of freedom in setting prices, and in fact prices are dictated as much by political expiedency as financial considerations. Currently the bulk of the PO's mailing is advertising, but because of the clout of direct mail marketers, the Post Office is forced to keep rates low to the point that the Post Office barely makes a profit. The Post Office loses money on 1st Class Mail because unlike a private business the PO can't simply pick and choose what areas of the country they're going to service. If (hypothetically) mail service were to be turned over to the private sector, it would be very unlikely that rural areas would have any service, and a lot of inner-city service would be curtailed as not cost effective. Although the Constitution doesn't specifically mandate a government run Postal Service, it does mandate that service be provided, and if they were to allow the private sector to service profitable areas and confine themselves to the unprofitable ones mentioned, the deficit would be greater

I am not sure this is correct. Can you explain to me then how UPS and Fedex are able to handle deliveries to anywhere in the country? I have sent items using these couriers to inner-city and rural places and have never noticed a price difference from their other deliveries.Being a former government employee, I would be very interested in seeing the employee salaries as a percentage of expenditures over the years. Given government salary structure, I am sure it has increased over the years.

Fed Ex and UPS, because they are private businesses, can, and do, set different rates to ship to and from different places. Although distance is one of the factors in setting rates, it's not the only one. Also the economies of scale that make profitability possible in the delivery of letters and magazines isn't nearly as pronounced in parcel delivery. Unlike letters which are only profitable because you usually have more than one to deliver to each address, each parcel generates it's own revenue. I imagine that employees expenditures are a large percentage of total percentage of total expenditures, which shouldn't be surprising as the employee is the product. A more interesting question, in my opinion, is the ratio of administration (management) costs as a percentage of total costs. One of the by-products of the military mindset is the need to document everything. Right now, because the PO is having monetary problems, there is a push to find ways to cut labor costs, which is fine except it seems, in my opinion, that the amount of manigerial resources expended to find places to cut costs are greater then the savings generated. And meany of their cost cutting measures are areas where they are generating revenue.

As far as the bolded, I am not doubting that. However, there is nothing to support that inner-city(the rural argument is clearer) service would be curtailed. As far as your other point, you are only making a slightly different point than mine. Managers are still employees, so that would still be reflected in a cost-analysis of increasing employee cost a percentage of expenditures. I agree that there are probably more "managers"(the term with the government can be used very loosely) in the PO than previously. I would guess that employee(both managerial and other) are increasing at a faster rate now than at previous times. Given the union strength of the postal employees, this is not a situation that any politician will address.

 

[Oh the Humanity]

...

(2) They don't have a lot of freedom in setting prices, and in fact prices are dictated as much by political expiedency as financial considerations. Currently the bulk of the PO's mailing is advertising, but because of the clout of direct mail marketers, the Post Office is forced to keep rates low to the point that the Post Office barely makes a profit. The Post Office loses money on 1st Class Mail because unlike a private business the PO can't simply pick and choose what areas of the country they're going to service. If (hypothetically) mail service were to be turned over to the private sector, it would be very unlikely that rural areas would have any service, and a lot of inner-city service would be curtailed as not cost effective. Although the Constitution doesn't specifically mandate a government run Postal Service, it does mandate that service be provided, and if they were to allow the private sector to service profitable areas and confine themselves to the unprofitable ones mentioned, the deficit would be greater

I am not sure this is correct. Can you explain to me then how UPS and Fedex are able to handle deliveries to anywhere in the country? I have sent items using these couriers to inner-city and rural places and have never noticed a price difference from their other deliveries.Being a former government employee, I would be very interested in seeing the employee salaries as a percentage of expenditures over the years. Given government salary structure, I am sure it has increased over the years.

Fed Ex and UPS, because they are private businesses, can, and do, set different rates to ship to and from different places. Although distance is one of the factors in setting rates, it's not the only one. Also the economies of scale that make profitability possible in the delivery of letters and magazines isn't nearly as pronounced in parcel delivery. Unlike letters which are only profitable because you usually have more than one to deliver to each address, each parcel generates it's own revenue. I imagine that employees expenditures are a large percentage of total percentage of total expenditures, which shouldn't be surprising as the employee is the product. A more interesting question, in my opinion, is the ratio of administration (management) costs as a percentage of total costs. One of the by-products of the military mindset is the need to document everything. Right now, because the PO is having monetary problems, there is a push to find ways to cut labor costs, which is fine except it seems, in my opinion, that the amount of manigerial resources expended to find places to cut costs are greater then the savings generated. And meany of their cost cutting measures are areas where they are generating revenue.

As far as the bolded, I am not doubting that. However, there is nothing to support that inner-city(the rural argument is clearer) service would be curtailed. As far as your other point, you are only making a slightly different point than mine. Managers are still employees, so that would still be reflected in a cost-analysis of increasing employee cost a percentage of expenditures. I agree that there are probably more "managers"(the term with the government can be used very loosely) in the PO than previously. I would guess that employee(both managerial and other) are increasing at a faster rate now than at previous times. Given the union strength of the postal employees, this is not a situation that any politician will address.

It is dangerous to deliver in the inner-city. As a mailman, I've been shot at with a BB gun, hit in the face with a half-full malt liquor can, had a brick thrown at me, attacked by a pitbull and cut off by a car driven by a woman who wanted her assistance check NOW!!! instead of when I got to her street. Except in very extreme cases we have to deliver to everyone. Needless to say, people get hurt and stuff gets broken in the process. Although UPS and FedEx make deliveries to high crime areas, they have a lot more leeway in determining when they are not going to make a delivery. If someone were to get into the mail business, they would have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of mail in the innercity is the bulk mail that USPS is barely allowed to break even on. They could set their own rates, but then direct mail marketers would use use USPS because they are forced to keep their rates cheaper. The end result is that the private deliverer would be able to deliver the little bit of profitable 1st class in the innercity, and leave USPS with the unprofitable bulk, although there is so little 1st class that a private mail delivery enterprise may simply choose not to deliver in low-income, high-crime areas.

 

[Wingnut]

The post office is losing money because millions of people are going "paperless" with their bills like credit cards, cable/satellite, etc in order to feel like theyre doing their part in "going green".

The "green" revolution claims another victim.....

 

[bigbottom]

Link

Postal Service reports $3.8 billion loss

Agency continues to lose money despite $10 billion in cost-cutting measures. Mail volume drops by 25 billion pieces in the fiscal year.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. Postal Service reported a $3.8 billion loss in the 2009 fiscal year, despite $10 billion in cost-cutting measures.

I'm impressed that they were able to cut $10 billion in costs, but I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

 

[roadkill1292]

The post office is losing money because millions of people are going "paperless" with their bills like credit cards, cable/satellite, etc in order to feel like theyre doing their part in "going green".The "green" revolution claims another victim.....

Failed logic. The automobile killed the horse and buggy industry, too. And when we get to the driverless car revolution, we'll kill the auto insurance business and that's ok, too.

 

[prosopis]

The post office isn't run to well, we live in a small village and have to get our mail from a P.O. Box in the village as they won't do local delivery, this department will then drive to all houses in a 20 mile radius to deliver their mail since they are part of the outskirts of the village. I mentioned to the postmaster that it would make more sense financially to make the people 20 miles out have P.O. boxes and then do local delivery since it would be a walking route and they could save a fortune on gas. She told me that she had requested that when she first took over the office and they informed her that this is way they have done it for over 100 years and they don't want to change something that works.huh.d

Are you a hobbit?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

how much does this cost is? $10/person and we get mail from door to door anywhere in the country.

$10 buys quite a few wheat pennies you know.

 

[Phurfur]

I know it's tradition to rag on the Post Office, but don't they actually do a good job most of the time nowadays? I pay almost all my bills online, but it's pretty amazing that I can leave an envelope in my mailbox in Maryland on Monday and have it show up anywhere in the country I want it to go in 2 or 3 days, for 42 cents. I can't remember the last time I had a big problem with the Post Office.

This used to happen for six cents and mail was delivered right to your door. Today our mail is delivered 3 blocks from our house for 42 cents. We pick up our mail about once a week. Who needs it?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

This used to happen for six cents

Candy bars used to be a nickel you know.

 

[Phurfur]

how much does this cost is? $10/person and we get mail from door to door anywhere in the country.

Millions of people do not have delivery or pickup from their door! UPS and Fedex diliver packages to our door but the USPS, yup they are amazing.

 

[FavreCo]

Inefficient. Who the hell needs mail more than once a week? Only losers that can't pay their bills on time. They deserve to pay the late fee anyway because they are stupid.

 

[Phurfur]

This used to happen for six cents

Candy bars used to be a nickel you know.

Door to door is the key here. HTH

 

[Phurfur]

This used to happen for six cents

Candy bars used to be a nickel you know.

Door to door is the key here. HTH

 

[Leroy Hoard]

This used to happen for six cents

Candy bars used to be a nickel you know.

Door to door is the key here. HTH

Everyone I know gets it door to door, but I'm sure there has always been some rural areas that don't.

 

[GoFishTN]

...

(2) They don't have a lot of freedom in setting prices, and in fact prices are dictated as much by political expiedency as financial considerations. Currently the bulk of the PO's mailing is advertising, but because of the clout of direct mail marketers, the Post Office is forced to keep rates low to the point that the Post Office barely makes a profit. The Post Office loses money on 1st Class Mail because unlike a private business the PO can't simply pick and choose what areas of the country they're going to service. If (hypothetically) mail service were to be turned over to the private sector, it would be very unlikely that rural areas would have any service, and a lot of inner-city service would be curtailed as not cost effective. Although the Constitution doesn't specifically mandate a government run Postal Service, it does mandate that service be provided, and if they were to allow the private sector to service profitable areas and confine themselves to the unprofitable ones mentioned, the deficit would be greater

I am not sure this is correct. Can you explain to me then how UPS and Fedex are able to handle deliveries to anywhere in the country? I have sent items using these couriers to inner-city and rural places and have never noticed a price difference from their other deliveries.Being a former government employee, I would be very interested in seeing the employee salaries as a percentage of expenditures over the years. Given government salary structure, I am sure it has increased over the years.

They can do this because the Post Office delivers their packages to those rural areas!

 

[ivnabru]

The problem is that the average postal worker salary is in the area of $50,000 a year. No offense to the postal workers out there but a postal worker shouldn't make more than $10 - $12 an hour......

Aren't just about all postal workers former military? It's harder to recruit if you make it harder for vets to get good jobs after they leave the service. And if postal workers got dumped down to $10-12/hour you're cutting a whole lot of good gigs for vets.All they need to do is raise the rates a couple cents across the board and the USPS would be profitable anyway. I'm fine paying 50 cents per letter, it's still pretty cheap. Plus I'm paperless on bills anyway so I don't send a whole lot myself.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The USPS, which lost $2.8 billion in fiscal 2008, and $5 billion in 2007, is a self-supporting government agency that receives no tax dollars. It relies solely on the sale of postage and products and services to generate sales.

It may not receive any tax dollars, but it does receive a government sanctioned monopoly. So let's not act like it's a private corporation here.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The problem is that the average postal worker salary is in the area of $50,000 a year. No offense to the postal workers out there but a postal worker shouldn't make more than $10 - $12 an hour......

Aren't just about all postal workers former military? It's harder to recruit if you make it harder for vets to get good jobs after they leave the service. And if postal workers got dumped down to $10-12/hour you're cutting a whole lot of good gigs for vets.All they need to do is raise the rates a couple cents across the board and the USPS would be profitable anyway. I'm fine paying 50 cents per letter, it's still pretty cheap. Plus I'm paperless on bills anyway so I don't send a whole lot myself.

You see this all the time. When companies are faced with declining market share and shrinking profitability they... raise prices.

 

[Statcruncher]

5 day delivery schedule

Raise prices

They've been doing that. I've been on eBay for years and have mailed/received thousands of items. The amount that shipping has gone up on packages over the past is pretty significant. Among other things they basically eliminated Parcel Post by bringing it's cost up to within pennies of the more expensive Priority mail. The USPS is still pretty cheap when compared to FedEx, DHL, and UPS, but the gap is closing. The smaller the gap gets the more people are going to jump to other shippers, resulting in less volume and reinforcing the death cycle.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

how much does this cost is? $10/person and we get mail from door to door anywhere in the country.

Millions of people do not have delivery or pickup from their door! UPS and Fedex diliver packages to our door but the USPS, yup they are amazing.

Well, then just tell everyone that sends you mail to send it via FedEx and pay $20 more...then you won't have to go 3 blocks to get your mail. Problem solved.

 

[Phurfur]

how much does this cost is? $10/person and we get mail from door to door anywhere in the country.

Millions of people do not have delivery or pickup from their door! UPS and Fedex diliver packages to our door but the USPS, yup they are amazing.

Well, then just tell everyone that sends you mail to send it via FedEx and pay $20 more...then you won't have to go 3 blocks to get your mail. Problem solved.

I don't think the junk mail lords will do this! My point is that the Post Office is a shell of what it used to be.

 

[headcrack]

I work for the post office as a machine operator/clerk. I don't know what it's like in other offices as I've only worked in one location ... but I've heard plenty of stories and believe I can safely assume that it's the same if not worse everywhere. First off, the USPS is ridiculously top-heavy and needs to drastically reduce the number of "managers" in it's ranks, a fact which is finally being addressed (at least in my district).

Secondly, the guy who says postal employees should only make $10-$12/hour? I can say without hesitation that if pay were based on quality and quantity of work, 90% of postal employees would be overpaid even at that rate. there are a few of us with good work ethic but we're few and far between. The majority are people who have been here for years or have never worked anywhere else and wouldn't last a month working in the private sector.

Which brings us to another factor which kills our efficiency ... the union. I could go on forever about how our rules and regulations are basically meaningless because management can't discipline or remove anyone because of the union and the employees know it. Management is basically powerless to get rid of anyone ... unless they're caught red-handed stealing or caught assaulting someone. Even then .... Some of the stuff I've seen would boggle your mind.

Then again, giving management any power at all would hardly be a lesser evil. There is so much favoritism and fraternization going on it's comical.

It's no wonder we're in so much trouble. If this place was a private business, it would have gone under years ago. It's a shame because there are some good people working for the USPS. People who have pride in their work and who still believe we provide a valuable service. People who actually earn every penny or our paycheck and then some. But believe me, the deck is stacked against us. Anyone who wonders why postal employees tend to snap should spend a month or so working here.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The post office is losing money because millions of people are going "paperless" with their bills like credit cards, cable/satellite, etc in order to feel like theyre doing their part in "going green".The "green" revolution claims another victim.....

WTF?

 

[Oh the Humanity]

The problem is that the average postal worker salary is in the area of $50,000 a year. No offense to the postal workers out there but a postal worker shouldn't make more than $10 - $12 an hour......

Aren't just about all postal workers former military? It's harder to recruit if you make it harder for vets to get good jobs after they leave the service. And if postal workers got dumped down to $10-12/hour you're cutting a whole lot of good gigs for vets.All they need to do is raise the rates a couple cents across the board and the USPS would be profitable anyway. I'm fine paying 50 cents per letter, it's still pretty cheap. Plus I'm paperless on bills anyway so I don't send a whole lot myself.

You see this all the time. When companies are faced with declining market share and shrinking profitability they... raise prices.

Unfortunately, this is the way the people at the top of the postal pyrmaid think. Not so much prices, but by eliminating services. That's why collection boxes are disappearing from streets, and why smaller offices are closing or combining services. Management at the city level are being evaluated by their superiors on how much they spend without regard for how much they take in.

 

[headcrack]

The problem is that the average postal worker salary is in the area of $50,000 a year. No offense to the postal workers out there but a postal worker shouldn't make more than $10 - $12 an hour......

Aren't just about all postal workers former military? It's harder to recruit if you make it harder for vets to get good jobs after they leave the service. And if postal workers got dumped down to $10-12/hour you're cutting a whole lot of good gigs for vets.

Not "almost all" ... although vets get some preference in the hiring process. Disabled vets get 10 points tacked onto their postal entrance exam scores and get interviewed first and non-disabled vets (depending on when they served) get 5 points, which in a lot of case is enough to vault them to the top of the hiring register.

 

[ivnabru]

The problem is that the average postal worker salary is in the area of $50,000 a year. No offense to the postal workers out there but a postal worker shouldn't make more than $10 - $12 an hour......

Aren't just about all postal workers former military? It's harder to recruit if you make it harder for vets to get good jobs after they leave the service. And if postal workers got dumped down to $10-12/hour you're cutting a whole lot of good gigs for vets.All they need to do is raise the rates a couple cents across the board and the USPS would be profitable anyway. I'm fine paying 50 cents per letter, it's still pretty cheap. Plus I'm paperless on bills anyway so I don't send a whole lot myself.

You see this all the time. When companies are faced with declining market share and shrinking profitability they... raise prices.

Letters aren't going to be in any danger, isn't that where they have the monopoly? On packages/parcels, speedy mail well they're still a lot cheaper on most of that stuff I believe though I don't send a lot of that kind of thing. Can UPS or FEDEX compete with those $5 flat rate boxes even if they bump them up to $5.25 or something?I guess the question with government jobs is those tend to be much higher percentage vets than non-government. So is it so horrible to offer people a good shot at a stable job if they serve their country, even if we have to subsidize that through tax dollars? Hey serve your country 8 years and you get to be middle class afterwards. (I know the contracts are 3-4, but you're still on IRR for the rest).I don't know. I kind of like the post office. Bloated government organization or not.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I guess the question with government jobs is those tend to be much higher percentage vets than non-government. So is it so horrible to offer people a good shot at a stable job if they serve their country, even if we have to subsidize that through tax dollars? Hey serve your country 8 years and you get to be middle class afterwards. (I know the contracts are 3-4, but you're still on IRR for the rest).I don't know. I kind of like the post office. Bloated government organization or not.

You like the post office because it's a welfare system for veterans?"Once there was a man who held a political make-work job like so many here...shining brass cannon around a courthouse. He did this for years...but he was not getting ahead in the world. So one day he quit his job, drew out his savings, bought a brass cannon — and went into business for himself."

 

[ivnabru]

The problem is that the average postal worker salary is in the area of $50,000 a year. No offense to the postal workers out there but a postal worker shouldn't make more than $10 - $12 an hour......

Aren't just about all postal workers former military? It's harder to recruit if you make it harder for vets to get good jobs after they leave the service. And if postal workers got dumped down to $10-12/hour you're cutting a whole lot of good gigs for vets.

Not "almost all" ... although vets get some preference in the hiring process. Disabled vets get 10 points tacked onto their postal entrance exam scores and get interviewed first and non-disabled vets (depending on when they served) get 5 points, which in a lot of case is enough to vault them to the top of the hiring register.

I know it has changed some in recent years. But if you go to people that have been with the postal service for 15+ years wouldn't they be a very high percentage former military? Much higher than the current people getting hired I mean?

 

[roadkill1292]

I thought they was all aliens.

 

[ivnabru]

I guess the question with government jobs is those tend to be much higher percentage vets than non-government. So is it so horrible to offer people a good shot at a stable job if they serve their country, even if we have to subsidize that through tax dollars? Hey serve your country 8 years and you get to be middle class afterwards. (I know the contracts are 3-4, but you're still on IRR for the rest).I don't know. I kind of like the post office. Bloated government organization or not.

You like the post office because it's a welfare system for veterans?"Once there was a man who held a political make-work job like so many here...shining brass cannon around a courthouse. He did this for years...but he was not getting ahead in the world. So one day he quit his job, drew out his savings, bought a brass cannon — and went into business for himself."

Pensions are a welfare system for former vets too, and a very expensive one. So is the Montgomery GI when you get right down to it. The way I see it you really only have 3 options in regards to your military. You give out some perks to keep the quality up including things like job preference when you get out.You lower your standards.Or you institute some sort of forced service. EDIT: I guess there's a 4th you could increase pay directly. But I kind of put that in the same category as the perks one. I don't know that it would really be any cheaper of an option in the long run.

 

[headcrack]

The problem is that the average postal worker salary is in the area of $50,000 a year. No offense to the postal workers out there but a postal worker shouldn't make more than $10 - $12 an hour......

Aren't just about all postal workers former military? It's harder to recruit if you make it harder for vets to get good jobs after they leave the service. And if postal workers got dumped down to $10-12/hour you're cutting a whole lot of good gigs for vets.

Not "almost all" ... although vets get some preference in the hiring process. Disabled vets get 10 points tacked onto their postal entrance exam scores and get interviewed first and non-disabled vets (depending on when they served) get 5 points, which in a lot of case is enough to vault them to the top of the hiring register.

I know it has changed some in recent years. But if you go to people that have been with the postal service for 15+ years wouldn't they be a very high percentage former military? Much higher than the current people getting hired I mean?

Not in the office I work in, although we may not be representative of the p.o. as a whole. I'd actually prefer it if there were more here. The ones we have at least try to do their jobs. As for people currently being hired ... there really aren't that many but out of the handful that have come aboard in the last few years, only one was prior military and he didn't even get the extra 5 points because he served "at the wrong time".

 

[Oh the Humanity]

I work for the post office as a machine operator/clerk. I don't know what it's like in other offices as I've only worked in one location ... but I've heard plenty of stories and believe I can safely assume that it's the same if not worse everywhere. First off, the USPS is ridiculously top-heavy and needs to drastically reduce the number of "managers" in it's ranks, a fact which is finally being addressed (at least in my district). Secondly, the guy who says postal employees should only make $10-$12/hour? I can say without hesitation that if pay were based on quality and quantity of work, 90% of postal employees would be overpaid even at that rate. there are a few of us with good work ethic but we're few and far between. The majority are people who have been here for years or have never worked anywhere else and wouldn't last a month working in the private sector.Which brings us to another factor which kills our efficiency ... the union. I could go on forever about how our rules and regulations are basically meaningless because management can't discipline or remove anyone because of the union and the employees know it. Management is basically powerless to get rid of anyone ... unless they're caught red-handed stealing or caught assaulting someone. Even then .... Some of the stuff I've seen would boggle your mind. Then again, giving management any power at all would hardly be a lesser evil. There is so much favoritism and fraternization going on it's comical.It's no wonder we're in so much trouble. If this place was a private business, it would have gone under years ago. It's a shame because there are some good people working for the USPS. People who have pride in their work and who still believe we provide a valuable service. People who actually earn every penny or our paycheck and then some. But believe me, the deck is stacked against us. Anyone who wonders why postal employees tend to snap should spend a month or so working here.

I agree with most of this. I'd quibble with the union's role in this, only because management doesn't ever want to put any checks on themselves in exchange for the relaxation of those rules, which would benefit virtually everybody that actually wants to work there. It's also virtually impossible for managers to get fired or demoted. In my opinion, the upper echelon of the unions are guilty engaging in mock warfare with Postal Management, while refusing to use the clout they do have to compel meaningful change. They like the system the way it is; no strikes, no firings. They give lip service to improving working conditions (which to a large extent are created by people who wouldn't have jobs in the private sector) but, hey, they don't have to work there. Unfortunately, o lot of managers and upper echelon union people have the jobs they have because they wanted the paycheck without working, and they assume everyone has the same mindset

 

[headcrack]

I work for the post office as a machine operator/clerk. I don't know what it's like in other offices as I've only worked in one location ... but I've heard plenty of stories and believe I can safely assume that it's the same if not worse everywhere. First off, the USPS is ridiculously top-heavy and needs to drastically reduce the number of "managers" in it's ranks, a fact which is finally being addressed (at least in my district). Secondly, the guy who says postal employees should only make $10-$12/hour? I can say without hesitation that if pay were based on quality and quantity of work, 90% of postal employees would be overpaid even at that rate. there are a few of us with good work ethic but we're few and far between. The majority are people who have been here for years or have never worked anywhere else and wouldn't last a month working in the private sector.Which brings us to another factor which kills our efficiency ... the union. I could go on forever about how our rules and regulations are basically meaningless because management can't discipline or remove anyone because of the union and the employees know it. Management is basically powerless to get rid of anyone ... unless they're caught red-handed stealing or caught assaulting someone. Even then .... Some of the stuff I've seen would boggle your mind. Then again, giving management any power at all would hardly be a lesser evil. There is so much favoritism and fraternization going on it's comical.It's no wonder we're in so much trouble. If this place was a private business, it would have gone under years ago. It's a shame because there are some good people working for the USPS. People who have pride in their work and who still believe we provide a valuable service. People who actually earn every penny or our paycheck and then some. But believe me, the deck is stacked against us. Anyone who wonders why postal employees tend to snap should spend a month or so working here.

I agree with most of this. I'd quibble with the union's role in this, only because management doesn't ever want to put any checks on themselves in exchange for the relaxation of those rules, which would benefit virtually everybody that actually wants to work there. It's also virtually impossible for managers to get fired or demoted. In my opinion, the upper echelon of the unions are guilty engaging in mock warfare with Postal Management, while refusing to use the clout they do have to compel meaningful change. They like the system the way it is; no strikes, no firings. They give lip service to improving working conditions (which to a large extent are created by people who wouldn't have jobs in the private sector) but, hey, they don't have to work there. Unfortunately, o lot of managers and upper echelon union people have the jobs they have because they wanted the paycheck without working, and they assume everyone has the same mindset

Giving management absolute power would be a little scary. But there's still a part of me that wishes we could ... just long enough to clean house and get rid of all the dead weight. I'm so torn on the whole union thing ... on the one hand it's nice to have them there should I ever need them, but on the other hand it's easy to argue that the union shoots itself in the foot and hurts those it should serve when it protects those who don't deserve to be protected. Wahtever ... I still pay my dues. At least I get a t-shirt and an occasional breakfast out of it.

 

[Oh the Humanity]

I work for the post office as a machine operator/clerk. I don't know what it's like in other offices as I've only worked in one location ... but I've heard plenty of stories and believe I can safely assume that it's the same if not worse everywhere. First off, the USPS is ridiculously top-heavy and needs to drastically reduce the number of "managers" in it's ranks, a fact which is finally being addressed (at least in my district). Secondly, the guy who says postal employees should only make $10-$12/hour? I can say without hesitation that if pay were based on quality and quantity of work, 90% of postal employees would be overpaid even at that rate. there are a few of us with good work ethic but we're few and far between. The majority are people who have been here for years or have never worked anywhere else and wouldn't last a month working in the private sector.Which brings us to another factor which kills our efficiency ... the union. I could go on forever about how our rules and regulations are basically meaningless because management can't discipline or remove anyone because of the union and the employees know it. Management is basically powerless to get rid of anyone ... unless they're caught red-handed stealing or caught assaulting someone. Even then .... Some of the stuff I've seen would boggle your mind. Then again, giving management any power at all would hardly be a lesser evil. There is so much favoritism and fraternization going on it's comical.It's no wonder we're in so much trouble. If this place was a private business, it would have gone under years ago. It's a shame because there are some good people working for the USPS. People who have pride in their work and who still believe we provide a valuable service. People who actually earn every penny or our paycheck and then some. But believe me, the deck is stacked against us. Anyone who wonders why postal employees tend to snap should spend a month or so working here.

I agree with most of this. I'd quibble with the union's role in this, only because management doesn't ever want to put any checks on themselves in exchange for the relaxation of those rules, which would benefit virtually everybody that actually wants to work there. It's also virtually impossible for managers to get fired or demoted. In my opinion, the upper echelon of the unions are guilty engaging in mock warfare with Postal Management, while refusing to use the clout they do have to compel meaningful change. They like the system the way it is; no strikes, no firings. They give lip service to improving working conditions (which to a large extent are created by people who wouldn't have jobs in the private sector) but, hey, they don't have to work there. Unfortunately, o lot of managers and upper echelon union people have the jobs they have because they wanted the paycheck without working, and they assume everyone has the same mindset

Giving management absolute power would be a little scary. But there's still a part of me that wishes we could ... just long enough to clean house and get rid of all the dead weight. I'm so torn on the whole union thing ... on the one hand it's nice to have them there should I ever need them, but on the other hand it's easy to argue that the union shoots itself in the foot and hurts those it should serve when it protects those who don't deserve to be protected. Wahtever ... I still pay my dues. At least I get a t-shirt and an occasional breakfast out of it.

It would be much better to have a third party come in and do the housecleaning. Congress is supposed to be the third party, but the Postal Service is small potatoes to them. In the private sector, the marketplace is the watchdog. At the root of it all, that's the problem. The overseers have no one to answer to.

 

[Darth Cheney]

I told them. Get in on the web portal and free e-mail wagon before it's too late. Did they listen? No. At their core, they were in charge of distributing information. Newman said it best. "when you control the mail....you control...INFORMATION!". They should have been Google and Yahoo before those two things ever came out.

 

[Death Bytes]

The USPS, which lost $2.8 billion in fiscal 2008, and $5 billion in 2007, is a self-supporting government agency that receives no tax dollars. It relies solely on the sale of postage and products and services to generate sales.

It may not receive any tax dollars, but it does receive a government sanctioned monopoly. So let's not act like it's a private corporation here.

It may not receive any tax dollars, but the government also misses out on tax revenue due the post office's existance in more ways than one. So let's not act like it isn't a tax cost to the people here.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Just got a media mail (book, soft cover) returned to our house. Apparantly, the book weighs more then the 12 or 13 ounce limit on media mail that can be collected from our street front mail box. So, and here is the funny - the mail man picked it up from our house in the box, brought it to the post office. It got sorted from there into whatever delivery mechanism is always would go into, and from there someone flagged it and said marked it to be returned because it wasn't brought into the post office by us. Not a wrong postage thing - the postage is right. No, it went through a two week process of being picked up and sorted and then marked for return and finally returned because we didn't bring it to the post office - the delivery guy did.

I'm guessing for this 3 dollar or so media mail package they spent probably a good $200 or more in man hours to go through this process. And it's motarted to begin with.

I'm guessing we can save some money stopping this. Just a thought.