"Over the past several years, the Postal Service has advocated shifting to a five-day delivery schedule for mail and packages — and it repeatedly but unsuccessfully appealed to Congress to approve the move. ... It was not immediately clear how the service could eliminate Saturday mail without congressional approval."
If you have to get congressional approval anyway, why not attempt to fix the underlying problem by not requiring all employee pensions to be funded up front? IIRC, that's the crux of their financial woes because it ties up billions in a move that no other industry is required to make.
It seems that certain factions within Congress are actively trying to kill the USPS, hence the pension requirement. Eliminating Saturday delivery reduces the services that USPS offers, so perhaps it has a better chance of passing...
I'm getting that feeling too. From not letting them cut Saturday delivery to needing to pay $5.5b upfront every year, someone in Congress wants the USPS to fail, and they're willing to play the long game (USPS has been struggling for a while). The question is who, why, and what is supposed to replace them? Is UPS or FedEx going to start delivering my mail? Again, Congress won't let them. The nation would shut down without the USPS.
The USPS is a zombie. It going to collapse in 10-15 years and stick taxpayers with $40 billion in unfunded retirement health benefits, among other costs. Congress is trying to get ahead of the problem with the pre-funding requirement.
Trying to get ahead of that problem by causing it to happen sooner? The USPS is taking out loans to "pay" this requirement. They're not allowed to go out of business. They're not allowed to cut costs. They're not allowed to receive federal money. They're forced further into debt every year. The USPS is the whipping boy of Congress. If Congress really wanted the USPS to be around long term, they would actually help them rather than making them pay this retirement fund with loans.
So sticking the taxpayers with a huge load of debt they incurred to fund the pensions is better?
Also, I see no evidence that USPS will ever cease to exist. Perhaps shrink in size and scope, but not cease to exist. At some point people need physical things to be moved from point A to point B, and USPS is one organization that does just that. Calling it a zombie without explaining yourself is just ignorant.
It is retiree health care that has to be pre-funded, through 2016. The USPS was operating that benefit program as pay-as-you-go, which was creating a huge unfunded liability for taxpayers.
No. The USPS has to prefund the next 75 years' worth of estimated healthcare expenses. If they estimate that someone will need healthcare in the year 2088, they have to put money aside for it today.
That bullshit requirement which no other company or institution in the world labors under is creating an artificial cashflow crisis at the USPS.
All companies have to fund pensions up front. Retiree healthcare doesn't have to be funded up front, but very few companies provide this benefit. It is rare that someone can retire at 50, and have their healthcare paid for by their employer for the rest of their lives (minus Medicare payments). This exceptional benefit should be pre-funded.
I am just going to assume that every bit of mail that would have been delivered on Saturday will just sit somewhere all weekend and be delivered on Monday. I doubt there will be any actual redistribution... just a heavier Monday mail bundle.
It's interesting that a country such as the US which, in my view from the outside, seems to generally oppose far-reaching public services, still has a postal service that delivers mail and packages on Saturdays.
I'm from Sweden, which I guess falls somewhere close to the opposite end of the spectrum in many people's eyes, and we've never had that, in my lifetime at least. :)
Well, in France (where I come from) and the Netherlands (where I currently live), there is mail delivery on Saturday. And I have to say I would find it sad if it would be gone.
The mail used to be delivered several times PER DAY. Saturday delivery is a relic of that bygone era. I probably only need to receive postal mail once a week. Maybe three times a week during holiday season. Saturday won't be missed here.
End the government-mandated monopoly on mail -- let the market take care of the issue. Probably 50% of the mail I get is stuff I don't even want in the first place.
I remember being a kid and getting a call from the post master telling me I could go to jail for putting my lawn service flyers in people's mailboxes. Fortunately, in the rural area I lived, the mailboxes had separate slots for newspapers, so I just put the flyers in the newspaper slot.
Your second point has nothing at all to do with your first point (unwanted mail); and is barely the USPS's fault.
I disagree with letting the "market" decide when it comes to vital infrastructure (mail, internet, roads, telephone, electricity, water) because the "market" is not always a healthy place (e.g. see US internet/cable/telephone market, see UK train market, et al).
It is one of the few areas where a state run monopoly might actually help business. While it certainly hurts opportunities within that specific sector, in really helps other businesses in other sectors compete globally.
Hey - great way to make sure nobody can afford to deliver rural mail. That ought to work great. "Let the market take care of the issue" really isn't always the best policy.
I'd like to find the best way to "opt out" of the postal system.
When I go out of town and put hold on my mail, they never work. The postal worker just delivers until the box is full and then returns the letters. Of course, the box is full because of junk mail (which you can't opt out of). I'd consider a post office box, but it is inconvenient, plus I'd have to change my address with everyone who sends me legitimate mail - you know, the things that you still can't handle electronically like W2s, etc.
I've heard that there are services which can have your mail forwarded to, who scan it and send it to you electronically, but I'd be concerned about identity theft.
It's just a broken system and there's no way to opt out.
Individual advertisers such as Red Plum let you opt out of their mailings. You can also opt out of credit card offers and the cash advance checks on your existing cards. Spent 20 minutes on it: it will save you a lot of time in the long run.
I agree with a lot of your thoughts, but as a counterpoint, I'm impressed by the UX of the "put my mail on hold" process at the USPS site every time I use it. I'm guessing there's real variance in the quality controls from office to office.
The junk mailers would still mail their advertisements. The USPS picks them up and scans them at their pickup point, or at the nearest processing facility (they already do this, to automatically shunt mail to the proper zones). Mail that I designate as "trash" via the iPhone / web app gets recycled before it actually gets shipped across the country, or, if it's already shipped, then when it next gets processed at my local processing facility. So the advertisers still pay the full rate; I just have the option of intercepting it before it makes it to my mailbox. If I don't act in time, it gets delivered, just like normal.
I'm sure advertisers would still pay the same rates for junk mail that nobody sees, and it wouldn't reduce the value of the junk mail to those advertisers.
Sounds like you have a problem with your local post office, not the concept of a postal service. I've successfully had my mail held before. If you can switch to a door slot instead of a mailbox, I think that also might solve your problem.
I sent all my mail to Earth Class Mail (by using one of their mail centers as an address for basically everything except legally-required residence address). They scan the covers of your mail by default. You don't actually need to have them open and scan the contents, so if you're afraid of identity theft, just scanning covers isn't any worse than someone with access to your (unlocked) mailbox.
They also have pretty good internal procedures to keep your mail safe. Top Secret paper shredders, employee background investigations, video monitoring, etc. I'm fairly paranoid, and I consider them safe enough for all of my personal mail. I wouldn't send root passwords for them to scan, but really, there's nothing in the banking system which lacks an audit trail and is irreversible, and they're a US company which could be sued if they did anything improper, so it seems like a safe risk to take.
The only complaints I have are that their costs have steadily creeped up over the years, and I've had to change one of my addresses twice in 5 years (first time, they had a horrible local UPS driver who kept misdelivering packages; the second time, Nike bought their building when their lease was up for renewal. They have a 7y lease on the new place, though.)
The sad thing is that the USPS is not all that bad off financially. Rather, Congress is requiring them to make completely unrealistic pension payments decades in advance, for employees who may or may not exist yet.
No other organization could operate under such a burden, and no other federal agency faces such a requirement. It makes one wonder if the requirement is in place as an attempt to kill the USPS and privatize mail delivery entirely.
I looked around for a succinct article that reported on my assertion to include with my original comment, but was unable to find one. There are a number of articles on the USPS that deal with this topic somewhere in the body though.
Just search for 'usps pension congress' and you should see articles from Reuters, The Guardian, Forbes, and others that back up this assertion.
Since the people responsible for the requirement have said explicitly that it's an attempt to kill the USPS and privatize mail entirely, you don't really have to wonder.
Congressman Issa, who is leading this charge, sees the USPS as a giant union that needs breaking, regardless of the damage to the United States from losing what is currently the world's fastest and cheapest postal system.
I really don't understand this sort of thinking. Sure, it's a large union, but if it is providing benefits for employees while enabling an efficient postal system that delivers to everyone — even those who live in places that private services may consider unprofitable to deliver to — then what's the problem?
UPS and FedEx also have complete nationwide delivery that includes unprofitable places. In fact, both private delivery companies come to my rural doorstep while the USPS won't deliver to my home at all.
It's a union with half a million employees. Congressman Issa is a Republican who hates unions. That's all he needs to know. Really, I don't think there's any deeper analysis than that.
People really don't understand the ideology level of the typical Republican in Congress. Ideology is first and foremost; good governance is not even a consideration.
Completely wrong. The requirement is to pre-fund their unique retiree health care benefit, not their pensions. (Everyone has to pre-fund pensions.) This special health care benefit was "pay-as-you-go" and has over $40 billion in unfunded liabilities. Without pre-funding, these costs will fall on the taxpayer as USPS goes bust in the next decade or two
You're correct in that it was healthcare, not pension. No wonder I was having trouble finding articles that I was sure I'd read on this.
That said, the requirement, which seems to be that the USPS must fund healthcare benefits 75 years in advance, is still patently ridiculous. It is a manufactured crisis, in part.
USPS needs to fund the promises it is making to its employees, especially when those promises will eventually cost nearly $50 billion. The retiree health care benefit is unique to postal workers, which is why USPS claims the burden is unique, but that's a pretty dishonest description of the situation.
The funding requirements became law in 2006 because the Post Office was not properly funding them and many in Congress didn't want another problem festering. The USPS major expense is its employee's, nearly eighty percent of its operating costs.
It has two problems that are both nearly insurmountable.
1) Congress, which likes to prevent the USPS from closing facilities, think of this as being similar to the dance that goes on when closing military bases comes up but with far more points of interest.
2) Unions. Rules prevent the arbiters from even considering the financial health of the USPS when negotiating contracts. Contracts also make it difficult to hire part time workers. On average their benefits are amongst the highest in the Federal workforce.
This may very well be a way to intentionally hurt or change USPS for the benefit of UPS and FedEx, or some other business interest (via corporate lobbyists). Or is being done for leverage.
Because it's the only way this all makes sense.
And contrary to popular belief that the people in charge are idiots that lack common sense, there is almost always a much deeper and well-thought-out strategy and story behind these types of situations.
On the other hand ... this could be afterall rather simple, and the media is making it out to be something it's not. That happens often too.
I don't believe it's really campaign to help UPS or Fedex, but mostly a campaign to hurt the half million unionized employees of USPS.
Congressman Issa is a Republican who has sworn jihad against unions. He hates unions with a passion usually reserved for people who run over your dog. So it's not really that he's a corrupt politician trying to get $$$ for his corporate supporters, it's rather that he's a ideologue.
I wonder if Netflix DVDs are considered packages or mail? Saturday delivery worked really well for Netflix. If we dropped our Netflix disk at the main Post Office by Thursday @ 2PM, we could expect a disk on Saturday.
I think Canada Post should switch to 3 day delivery for residential addresses. Given the push to electronic bills and payments (many companies charge extra if you opt for a paper bill) 90% of whats in my mailbox is junk mail. Improved parcel service would be nice however, online shopping should be increasing interest in that product.
Well, 75% to 90% of my daily mail is unsolicited junk. I estimate that we throw out five to seven pounds of junk mail per week. If this is typical of most households this is a remarkable amount of stuff that is being thrown out on a daily basis.
Our of memory, the majority of the legitimate mail we get is from government agencies (bills, voting packets, etc.), a couple of catalogs and companies who haven't gone 100% online yet.
We switched to online banking and online bill payments a long, long time ago. Nearly every package delivery we receive is via FedEx or UPS.
You have to wonder, if the USPS was not allowed to deliver bulk junk mail, what would their financials look like?
According to this US census, there are over 132 million housing units (homes and apartments) in the US.
If each of these homes is throwing out just TWO pounds of junk mail every week --just TWO POUNDS, not five like we do-- that represents TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR MILLION POUNDS of garbage per week and over FOURTEEN BILLION POUNDS (14,256,000,000) of garbage per year!
I am NOT a crazy environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but, I'm sorry, but that's just-about criminal. That is a disgusting amount of trash moved by the USPS for no reason whatsoever.
The problem doesn't end there. Besides environmental impact, think of all the fuel and waste by-products consumed by moving and having to deal with fourteen billion pounds of trash. Think of the USPS delivery pipeline, trucks, vans, airplanes and unnecessary people. Think of the additional capacity requirement in local trash pickup trucks and the fuel they burn. And think of the excess power, people, area and fuel required to process and recycle this trash.
Based just on the the above I'd say that, yes, the USPS either needs to go away or seriously shrink down and stop this nonsense.
USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana where it would be infeasible for them to put it on their route. While USPS guarantees mail to small, forgotten areas.
> USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana
Who cares? Really. You are talking about keeping alive an organization that is now beyond obsolete just because people choose to live in these places? It's their choice. Their problem. Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way?
I don't have any problem with people living in the middle of a desert if they want to. Or 3,000 feet up a mountain in a cabin that is only reachable via helicopter and has no roads in or out. That's fine. As far as I am concerned, you are free to do as you wish and live wherever you want to.
That said, it is YOUR responsibility to live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life. If this means that you have to drive twenty miles to pick-up your mail once a week, or pay for a helicopter to deliver mail and supplies, so be it. Your choice. You don't have to live there. Don't make it my responsibility. It isn't.
His argument is that we shouldn't feel obliged to deliver mail to residences so far out of the way that said delivery is cost prohibitive, not that "no government services should be provided to anyone not in Washington DC". Sounds reasonable to me. The specifics of "cost prohibitive" and "out of the way" can be refined to prevent ideologically-charged, unrealistic reductions like yours.
"His argument is that we shouldn't feel obliged to deliver mail to residences so far out of the way that said delivery is cost prohibitive"
Define "cost prohibitive". Costs exceed revenue for that particular piece? If so, I can guarantee you that the delivery radius is a lot smaller than you (and he) appear to think that it is.
There's a reason why essentially every country adopted a flat-rate fee for regular mail way back in the 19th century.
where do you draw the line? Today it's infeasible for po-dunk-town, Montana, tomorrow it's anywhere more than 5 miles from the nearest city. Yes that's hyperbole, but it illustrates the point that what's infeasible is relative to the time. I'm sure the pony express wasn't exactly feasible, but it was still necessary.
"Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way?"
What can be more selfish - the fact that you only care about the situation you're in, or the fact that you'd leave others out to dry because you feel like you're paying for something you wouldn't do. Those who live in po-dunk-town, Montana are part of the US just as you are, and frankly deserve to have their mail delivered as well.
Ha. Say hello to the "1.3 trillion mailing industry" cited in the CNBC interview. Not to mention "8-9 million prvate sector jobs".
If you do some research on the history of the US mail, specifically air mail, you might find some interesting details. Is it possible that "junk mail" was used as the justification for air mail service? What role does junk mail play in the economics of the mail system?
The CNBC interview also says the US moves "40% of the world's mail". I wonder how much of the world's junk mail the US is responsible for? Vis-a-vis other countries, does the US produce more junk in proportion to legitimate mail? Does junk mail drive the US mail system?
Nearly 600,000 employees who retire at age 50 and draw salaries and benefits for the rest of their lives. Yeah, that's a formula for success. Guess who's going to be paying that bill.
80 comments
[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] thread"Over the past several years, the Postal Service has advocated shifting to a five-day delivery schedule for mail and packages — and it repeatedly but unsuccessfully appealed to Congress to approve the move. ... It was not immediately clear how the service could eliminate Saturday mail without congressional approval."
Also, I see no evidence that USPS will ever cease to exist. Perhaps shrink in size and scope, but not cease to exist. At some point people need physical things to be moved from point A to point B, and USPS is one organization that does just that. Calling it a zombie without explaining yourself is just ignorant.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432/The_Truth_About_The_Post_Off...
That bullshit requirement which no other company or institution in the world labors under is creating an artificial cashflow crisis at the USPS.
I'm from Sweden, which I guess falls somewhere close to the opposite end of the spectrum in many people's eyes, and we've never had that, in my lifetime at least. :)
When was it delivered more than once a day? Everywhere, or in limited areas?
In fact, it's a criminal act to deliver mail without paying the USPS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1693
And presumably the same number of companies would want to send you junk mail regardless of who owns the post office...
I disagree with letting the "market" decide when it comes to vital infrastructure (mail, internet, roads, telephone, electricity, water) because the "market" is not always a healthy place (e.g. see US internet/cable/telephone market, see UK train market, et al).
It is one of the few areas where a state run monopoly might actually help business. While it certainly hurts opportunities within that specific sector, in really helps other businesses in other sectors compete globally.
When I go out of town and put hold on my mail, they never work. The postal worker just delivers until the box is full and then returns the letters. Of course, the box is full because of junk mail (which you can't opt out of). I'd consider a post office box, but it is inconvenient, plus I'd have to change my address with everyone who sends me legitimate mail - you know, the things that you still can't handle electronically like W2s, etc.
I've heard that there are services which can have your mail forwarded to, who scan it and send it to you electronically, but I'd be concerned about identity theft.
It's just a broken system and there's no way to opt out.
But I have no idea why the USPS doesn't offer a "we'll scan your mail before we deliver it, and you can select what you want" service, like the idea laid out here: https://tonywebster.com/2012/07/reinventing-the-united-state...
They also have pretty good internal procedures to keep your mail safe. Top Secret paper shredders, employee background investigations, video monitoring, etc. I'm fairly paranoid, and I consider them safe enough for all of my personal mail. I wouldn't send root passwords for them to scan, but really, there's nothing in the banking system which lacks an audit trail and is irreversible, and they're a US company which could be sued if they did anything improper, so it seems like a safe risk to take.
The only complaints I have are that their costs have steadily creeped up over the years, and I've had to change one of my addresses twice in 5 years (first time, they had a horrible local UPS driver who kept misdelivering packages; the second time, Nike bought their building when their lease was up for renewal. They have a 7y lease on the new place, though.)
No other organization could operate under such a burden, and no other federal agency faces such a requirement. It makes one wonder if the requirement is in place as an attempt to kill the USPS and privatize mail delivery entirely.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service...
Just search for 'usps pension congress' and you should see articles from Reuters, The Guardian, Forbes, and others that back up this assertion.
Congressman Issa, who is leading this charge, sees the USPS as a giant union that needs breaking, regardless of the damage to the United States from losing what is currently the world's fastest and cheapest postal system.
The USPS, on the other hand, will deliver things to you for 46 cents.
Where is this? I ship a lot of packages and have experienced this opposite, I've never seen the situation you describe.
People really don't understand the ideology level of the typical Republican in Congress. Ideology is first and foremost; good governance is not even a consideration.
That said, the requirement, which seems to be that the USPS must fund healthcare benefits 75 years in advance, is still patently ridiculous. It is a manufactured crisis, in part.
It has two problems that are both nearly insurmountable. 1) Congress, which likes to prevent the USPS from closing facilities, think of this as being similar to the dance that goes on when closing military bases comes up but with far more points of interest. 2) Unions. Rules prevent the arbiters from even considering the financial health of the USPS when negotiating contracts. Contracts also make it difficult to hire part time workers. On average their benefits are amongst the highest in the Federal workforce.
Because it's the only way this all makes sense.
And contrary to popular belief that the people in charge are idiots that lack common sense, there is almost always a much deeper and well-thought-out strategy and story behind these types of situations.
On the other hand ... this could be afterall rather simple, and the media is making it out to be something it's not. That happens often too.
Congressman Issa is a Republican who has sworn jihad against unions. He hates unions with a passion usually reserved for people who run over your dog. So it's not really that he's a corrupt politician trying to get $$$ for his corporate supporters, it's rather that he's a ideologue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/darrell-issa-labor-...
Our of memory, the majority of the legitimate mail we get is from government agencies (bills, voting packets, etc.), a couple of catalogs and companies who haven't gone 100% online yet.
We switched to online banking and online bill payments a long, long time ago. Nearly every package delivery we receive is via FedEx or UPS.
You have to wonder, if the USPS was not allowed to deliver bulk junk mail, what would their financials look like?
According to this US census, there are over 132 million housing units (homes and apartments) in the US.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
If each of these homes is throwing out just TWO pounds of junk mail every week --just TWO POUNDS, not five like we do-- that represents TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR MILLION POUNDS of garbage per week and over FOURTEEN BILLION POUNDS (14,256,000,000) of garbage per year!
I am NOT a crazy environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but, I'm sorry, but that's just-about criminal. That is a disgusting amount of trash moved by the USPS for no reason whatsoever.
The problem doesn't end there. Besides environmental impact, think of all the fuel and waste by-products consumed by moving and having to deal with fourteen billion pounds of trash. Think of the USPS delivery pipeline, trucks, vans, airplanes and unnecessary people. Think of the additional capacity requirement in local trash pickup trucks and the fuel they burn. And think of the excess power, people, area and fuel required to process and recycle this trash.
Based just on the the above I'd say that, yes, the USPS either needs to go away or seriously shrink down and stop this nonsense.
Who cares? Really. You are talking about keeping alive an organization that is now beyond obsolete just because people choose to live in these places? It's their choice. Their problem. Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way?
I don't have any problem with people living in the middle of a desert if they want to. Or 3,000 feet up a mountain in a cabin that is only reachable via helicopter and has no roads in or out. That's fine. As far as I am concerned, you are free to do as you wish and live wherever you want to.
That said, it is YOUR responsibility to live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life. If this means that you have to drive twenty miles to pick-up your mail once a week, or pay for a helicopter to deliver mail and supplies, so be it. Your choice. You don't have to live there. Don't make it my responsibility. It isn't.
Why don't we take it to its logical conclusion and remove all services for anyone who doesn't live in Washington, DC?
You (presumably) chose to live somewhere other than Washington D.C.
The exact same argument applies.
Define "cost prohibitive". Costs exceed revenue for that particular piece? If so, I can guarantee you that the delivery radius is a lot smaller than you (and he) appear to think that it is.
There's a reason why essentially every country adopted a flat-rate fee for regular mail way back in the 19th century.
"Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way?"
What can be more selfish - the fact that you only care about the situation you're in, or the fact that you'd leave others out to dry because you feel like you're paying for something you wouldn't do. Those who live in po-dunk-town, Montana are part of the US just as you are, and frankly deserve to have their mail delivered as well.
If you do some research on the history of the US mail, specifically air mail, you might find some interesting details. Is it possible that "junk mail" was used as the justification for air mail service? What role does junk mail play in the economics of the mail system?
The CNBC interview also says the US moves "40% of the world's mail". I wonder how much of the world's junk mail the US is responsible for? Vis-a-vis other countries, does the US produce more junk in proportion to legitimate mail? Does junk mail drive the US mail system?
Nearly 600,000 employees who retire at age 50 and draw salaries and benefits for the rest of their lives. Yeah, that's a formula for success. Guess who's going to be paying that bill.
Also, 250,000 vehicles according to Wikipedia.