Last time USPS was profitable was 2006, and if it weren't for the law the Post Office would still be profitable, though admittedly in decline bust still profitable and stable. According to some people here, surprisingly all conservatives and Republican leaning, that the law requiring the Post Office pay into the pension and healthcare fund for the next 75 years has nothing to do with the Post Office financial problems.

I guess that is just coincidence because it is really because of email. /sarcasm



Really? Driving the Post Office into bankruptcy is intelligent? Causing financial trouble that has caused, and will cause, massive lay offs and Postal Workers should be thankful? From this scenario I'd love to hear what you consider stupid.

I don't know whether the move will be smart in the long term or not, but if you want the post office to pay for itself, then it needs to fund the retirement program for the workers. What happens in 40 or 50 years with the steady decline in "snail mail"? If the post office does go under in the future without funding that retirement it's promised the union, do they just lose out and get screwed out of their retirement benefit? Does it come out of the general treasury? Is it not best to insure that the Post office actually funds the retirement it is promising it's workers? Also, if they cannot afford to pay those retirees, how is that being profitable?

We can play the political blame game all we want, but the Postal Service has been on a steady decline for years. Maybe this is what it takes to kick start some reforms to clean it up a little bit.

I'd certainly rather lose a day of postal delivery, than see it go under and not be able to fund the retirements they promised the employees, because either scenario from that is bad

It's pretty simple, really; I don't want my social security money & other tax dollars going towards paying for retirement for USPS workers because they realized they had to cut their size in half 10, 15, 20 years too late. (Yes, I know, they're not taxpayer-funded right now; but that can change in a damned hurry, as I'm sure you know.)

Forcing any company to put away 75 years worth of retirement is just plain stupid.

"What happens in 40 or 50 years with the steady decline in "snail mail"? If the post office does go under in the future without funding that retirement it's promised the union, do they just lose out and get screwed out of their retirement benefit?"

Oh, what about every other company that goes out of business? Why don't you care about them? Why isn't every company in the United States forced to pay 75 years into a retirement account?

"It's pretty simple, really; I don't want my social security money & other tax dollars going towards paying for retirement for USPS workers because they realized they had to cut their size in half 10, 15, 20 years too late. (Yes, I know, they're not taxpayer-funded right now; but that can change in a damned hurry, as I'm sure you know.)"

Wow you sound like a crybaby. "I don't want my social security money blah blah blah blah" What about THEIR social security and tax dollars? I'm sure they don't want that going in your selfish little hands.

This is a stupid, partisan argument. You guys are only defending this because someone said the "republicans" are doing it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

They are a hugely inefficient, short-sighted company that is now suffering from years - decades even - of terrible management. Most other companies and organizations have been trimming down, doing more with less, for years. Why should this organization be held to a different standard and given special treatment over any others? What does it offer society that can't be offered, or isn't being offered, by any other company?

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

I feel like the questions you have asked can be all answered easily yet you refuse to... think?

There's one huge difference between the USPS and every other provider, they agree to deliver every weekday [now] to EVERY SINGLE ADDRESS. I don't think you realize how inefficient and expensive this is but at the same time so very important.

There's not a company in the world that doesn't take from it's retirement accounts when things are going bad. It's ridiculous that the USPS isn't afforded that same option.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Again, the APWU makes it nearly impossible to "trim the fat" that other companies have been able to. Most people may not realize this, but the APWU actually got their members a 3% wage increase amidst massive layoffs in other workplaces in this economy. This issue started waaaay back when the Post Office was a juggernaut. Sadly, the people that were lining their pockets with Union kickbacks made all the decisions thinking only about a few rather than the whole system.

I witnessed a brand new hire to the USPS actually get told by another union member postal worker to slow down because its not in their best interest to go full speed. This practice has been widespread as long as I've worked there and I'm sure long before I was there. How do you fight that? I take pride in the work I do, so to see all this criticism thrown out there when there is soooo much people don't realize is going on at the core of the USPS' problems, frankly blows.

_________________

I still struggle to see how this is different from any of the other major shipping companies out there, other than business model and efficiency. When you strip away all the junk mail, fliers, propaganda, and various other unsolicited crap they deliver, I'd bet there's no more volume than UPS or FedEx. They're the second largest civilian company in the United States, propped up entirely by giving their customers things they do not want and did not ask for. What other organization in the world could possibly survive doing that?

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

They are giving the other customer what they want. Lots of business is produced by direct mail.

_________________
That's weak sauce!

I'd say they do give the "customer" what it wants, in so much as with television, the customer being the person paying for ads and we the consumer having to watch them. With the postal service, the "customer" is those who pay for the mailers and we who get stuck with them are just the "consumer". Sadly even if 90% of that stuff is tossed aside, it's price point is such that they still profit from the new customers it brings in.

Heh. Exactly. So essentially they're a federally funded and protected SEO company for Nigerian princes, fake lottery winners and ad agencies. Let's not kid ourselves about the true customer/client-business relationship.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

The Internet has a lot of junk too... let's make sure it gets shut down!

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

The "Internet" A) isn't a single business entity, and B) seems to operate well with that paradigm, unlike the Post Office. Pretty poor comparison.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

"Its a completely self-funded institution that many citizens rely on for services, but I dislike junk mail... Shut'r down!"

If you consider "self-funded" as in paid for by the users who use the system along with subsidies for rural, then yes, but that isn't even the issue.

I don't think anyone in this thread said we should just totally shut down the post office. Heck, the saturday closure isn't even set in stone, it has to be approved by congress, so it still may not happen. It is a good idea for the post office to get their house in order though and streamline operations so they can stay operational though. You seem to believe otherwise

How can you streamline an operation that because one of the reasons it can't compete is that it promises to deliver to every address every day?

There are things they can do, but cutting off 6.2B of cash because your being forced by the government to save for 75 years of retirement is ridiculous.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I'm right there with you the whole time but then...well, I highlighted the exact reason why you're a complete ninny that gets under people's skin. You're always prognosticating what others truly believe, by reading between imaginary lines. Take statements at face value, kid.

In fact by the last statement you're either stupid or just a liar. I posted a personal anecdote on a local postal carrier showing some of the flaws in the system that I've seen first hand. That pretty clearly illustrates I'm not against streamlining.

With your backword logic, every business in the country should shut down a day of operation. If you work 5 days a week, why can't your employer make you do your work in 4 days? It will save money on the bottom line. Anyone that works 5 days a week is a leach on their company.

So I'm not supposed to read what you say and have an opinion or else I'm a ninny? Ok, didn't realize that after 15 years on these boards. This is definitely news to me. Thanks for straightening that out.

As for your little anecdote about my "backwards" logic, I find it hilarious that you use the most screwed up logic that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You are saying that since the post office is shutting down one day to streamline service (which you tried to claim you are for) that every company should be able to cut their workers back to 4 days per week and get their work done.

Well let's examine that shall we?

Many companies already are getting the same work done with fewer employees. This has been a trend for some time now. It's a partly why unemployment is where it's at, and the economy is partially why companies are pushing their employees to get as much or more done with fewer employees or in less time.

On to the post office though, since that is the subject here. They are doing less actual mail delivery (first class) than they have in quite some time. When you are doing less service, it should be expected to be able to get it done in less time.

You misinterpretted the serious part for sarcasm and the sarcasm for seriousness.

Well the ninny part I took as smart ass or sarcastic (take your pick) thus the smart ass reply to it. As for the rest, I can only reply to what you write. First you say I shouldn't read between the lines, then you complain that I take what you say literally. Make up your mind man. You make it difficult around here