Postal Service to Cut Saturday Mail

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by fyreline

I've never been able to understand why people are so confused that the US Postal Service isn't profitable. Here, I've just handed you an envelope and told you to deliver it right to the door of anyone in the United States I choose. Anywhere from Alaska to Maine. Oh, by the way, here's 46 cents for your trouble.

Are you kidding me?

The postal service is just that - a SERVICE. Of course it needs to be run in a businesslike and efficient manner (which is the kiss of death for any government agency), but it is NOT a business - it's a service. Anyone who thinks they can make any money delivering those big, fat Hemmings Motor News issues all over the country (and in fact the world) for what they charge to do so is patently insane. So, they need to cut back on some of those - here's that word again - services. OK, fine. Do what you need to do.

But for those who complain about what the USPS costs, and how much money it loses . . . would you prefer privatization? Have you compared FedEx and UPS charges lately? That's why the US Postal Service's package delivery business is way up. No one does a better job for less than the post office. I don't think anyone can. The reality is that mail itself has changed. E-mail, faxes and facebook have eliminated most written correspondence (and spelling and grammar are now pretty much extinct). The post office needs to evolve, and we are seeing part of the process.

Just my opinion. I still like getting mail, but that may be a generational thing. I know my local newspaper just went to a Tuesday - Thursday - Sunday only delivery, and I miss those other days. Guess that's the way of the world now, though. Pursuit of the Sustainable Business Model.

- sigh -

The problem in a nutshell is that congress runs the PO. Pretty much anything the gov runs, is shit. I can't wait to hand them my guns and my healthcare..

[92Roadster]

...FROM

Salary
Salaries at the postal service are paid through money earned
from operations, and tax dollars do not directly subsidize these
expenses. The salary of the postmaster general has risen in
recent years despite poor financial performance of the USPS
itself. In 2007, Congress set the postmaster general's salary
at $186,000, which rose to $265,000 in 2008.

Benefits
Compensation is not limited to regular salary, as the
postmaster general also receives valuable benefits, such as
performance bonuses, which amounted to $135,000 in 2008.
The bonus is paid when the postmaster leaves his position
and retires from federal government employment. Congress
has also approved a package of retirement benefits for the
postmaster general.

2009 Salary Freeze
In 2009, Postmaster General John E. Potter, who had been
serving in this position since 2001, imposed a salary freeze
on himself and all USPS executives, citing the serious losses
the post office was experiencing from day-to-day operations.
The USPS is facing increased competition from private delivery
services such as UPS and FedEx, as well as the widespread use
of email for personal and business correspondence.

Retirement and Replacement
In 2010, the postmaster general's salary authorized by
Congress rose to $273,296. Potter stepped down as postmaster
general in December 2010, at which time he was awarded $3.1
million in accumulated pension benefits, which he earned over
a 32-year period in government service, as well as
compensation for leave not taken, and outplacement
assistance for a period of two years. In 2011, Potter was
replaced by Deputy Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe,
whose salary in his first year stood at $267,840.

[AK's Z06]

Originally Posted by 92Roadster

....well, one good thing is..no bills in the mail on Saturday...

[fyreline]

Somebody has never heard of economies of scale. You don't actually think your letter carrier drives accross the country to collect each piece do you???

The point I made is still valid. To the postal consumer, it costs him or her 47 cents to send a first-class letter anywhere in the USA - and that's a bargain no matter how you add it up. Economy of scale does, of course, enter into the USPS budget process . . . but it is a double-edged sword. Extrapolate it to any number of letters you wish, x 47 cents each, but remember that the infrastructure, vehicles, buildings and labor costs required to deliver that increasing number of letters also goes up exponentially. End game: You ain't gonna make any money. Proof of this: Watch the news. "Economies of scale" ? Yeah, I've heard of it.

Doesn't change the equation for the Post Office, though.

[StillCrazy]

You guys know nothing about how the p/o works or how the funds are SCREWED up. I worked for 35 yrs as a letter carrier and union rep. If they drop Sat delivery there are thousands of jobs being lost. Carriers with lots of time in service will lose their jobs. Postal management has a notorious reputation for hiding funds. Back several yrs ago the union forced the p/o to open their books to a private audit and guess what we found, over a billion dollars squirled away.
Second they can't do away with Sat delivery unless congress approves it. That's the law, no matter what the post master general says, it's congress' decision.
We always maintained and it's still true today that the p/o is top heavy,there are to many people making BIG saleries and they dont do any real work.

[C6 CRUZR]

Originally Posted by StillCrazy

If they drop Sat delivery there are thousands of jobs being lost.

If a job is lost when it isn't needed, is it really lost?

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by C6 CRUZR

If a job is lost when it isn't needed, is it really lost?

Sounds like savings to me.

[PredatorC6]

What a great idea !

Stop delivering mail on Saturdays, but have the trucks drive down the same streets, delivering packages.

Brilliant

I'm sure this will save hundrfeds of dollars!

[StillCrazy]

Originally Posted by C6 CRUZR

If a job is lost when it isn't needed, is it really lost?

I don't disagree with that,but the p/o for yrs has been top heavy. We have said for yrs there are to many layers between the pmg and the work force,but you want to cut the work force not the fat layers in between. This has been a fight for yrs.
People still depend on getting their mail six days a week. They are still going to deliver the packages on Sat. Thats stupid as hell except the package business is now big business.

The package delivery is another example of stipidy in management. The post office gave away the package business to ups yrs ago. The p/o said it was loosing money and usp could have it. Ups saw it as a way to make money,and look at it today.

[the machine]

Originally Posted by Texdentist

I'm perfectly alright with cutting out Saturday mail if it reduces taxpayer subsidies of the Postal Service. I get 99 pieces of mail I would rather not have to every 1 piece that is good news. Hell, they can deliver once a week to homes as far as I'm concerned. Business -- obviously needs at least 5 days a week.

Actualy the US postal service has not recieved any taxpayer dollars since the early 1980s. But in 2006 congress mandated that the the postal service must pay $5.5 billion a year to pre-fund retiree health care, 75 years into the future. That is $9,581 per employee, on top of what they pay for health care for today.

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by the machine

Actualy the US postal service has not recieved any taxpayer dollars since the early 1980s. But in 2006 congress mandated that the the postal service must pay $5.5 billion a year to pre-fund retiree health care, 75 years into the future. That is $9,581 per employee, on top of what they pay for health care for today.

They actually get about $100 million a year, but I don't disagree with that.

Your point in the exact reason they are in trouble. I don't know why the democrats wanted them to pre-fund retiree healthcare for 75 years..

[C6 CRUZR]

Originally Posted by the machine

Actualy the US postal service has not recieved any taxpayer dollars since the early 1980s. But in 2006 congress mandated that the the postal service must pay $5.5 billion a year to pre-fund retiree health care, 75 years into the future. That is $9,581 per employee, on top of what they pay for health care for today.

It might be a small part of the problem but they got
a deferral on the pre-funding in 2009 and still
had losses of $3.8 billion.
Their main problem is they are still bloated with
employees at all levels with a continuing drop in volume.