the USPS cannot make their $5.5 Billion payment this month and are in danger of shutting down come winter and are asking Congress for help. My main thing is who signs a "no layoff" agreement for any job?
Its more of the fact that UPS is just killing them on pricing. For all the internet ordering is going on, you would think they would do huge business. Instead they losing money right and left. Even after all the closings they did a few years ago, the fact they are losing is maddening. Even if they laid everyone off and went with skeleton crews I doubt they would make a profit. At the same time, I am not sure if they should make a profit. If they break even I am ok with it, but any government organization that makes money raises my eyebrow than those who lose money. Yet, 5.5 billion is such a huge number that they need to get that down to at least a few million.
The Wee Baby Sheamus.
Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
As in many aspects of government over the last 30 years, they are caught in the cross hairs of two competing philosophies:
1. provide a service to people as a governmental entity hamstrung by Congressional mandate
2. run like a business while not being allowed to actually run like a business
Our Senator is big on the cut at all costs and government has to be efficient while at the same time popping up in Western Kansas and speaking to the dire consequences and tragedy as more and more small towns (as in less than 1000 people) lose their post office and move toward each county having one, not three or four. So while placing their nuts over the fire to cut costs, the are supposed to do it without cutting anything.
Originally posted by XPacArmyMy main thing is who signs a "no layoff" agreement for any job?
This is what happens when the people ostensibly in charge don't give a crap. The people in management negotiating the union contracts have no incentive to try to cut costs. Much easier to cave on whatever the workers want.
I found out recently about the American Letter Mail Company. It was a private mail delivery service that was started in 1844, that could deliver mail cheaper than the postal service could. The government dealt with them by creating the Private Express Statutes, which made it illegal or impossible for private letter carriers to compete with the Postal Service. Perhaps they should rescind those laws and see if the private sector can do it cheaper.
It's not a surprise. Mail volume reached its peak in 2006, and has declined 20% since then. Unless they can lower expenses by 20% (and payroll costs are the lion's share of expenses), the per envelope cost of delivery will continue to rise. And according to the law, the postal service cannot raise postage by more than the rate of inflation, so rate increases aren't the answer either. The only way to cut expenses is to layoff some people. Obviously it sucks for anyone who might lose their job, but there it is.
Having worked for the Post Office in the past year and being in weekly meeting about the status of the USPS, the main expense is not wages, it is the pensions and retirement payments.
Letter revenue us down but parcel revenue is up. Also, UPS and FedEx compete with each other for the right to ship all the priority/foreign parcels that have to fly as the Post Office doesn't keep their own fleet of jets like the other two. Currently, as of June when I was laid off, FedEx had the contract to ship all the parcels. We had to have the FedEx trucks loaded by 0030 so they could make it out to Dulles so they could be put on the right FedEx planes.
So, in short, the competition pays the USPS to ship the USPS boxes.
Problems I saw while working there. Because of the union, it was VERY HARD for people to get fired. People would literally not work and when challenged, they would suddenly have back pains. I, like many other people, were temps hired to basically do the jobs some regulars were getting paid to do, but refusing to do. If management had an easier way to fire the "workers" who deserved it, they could actually get people in who are motivated to work.
Also, carriers are paid for an 8 hour day even if they finish early. If they do their whole route in 5 hours, they get paid for 8 and get to go home early. That needs to stop. What would be better? I don't know. Pay them by the hour and they will goof off to make sure they have all their hours. No one would be motivated to finish early if they lose cash.
I have read articles that the Postmaster will get the law overturned that dictates Saturday delivery and that is a good step in the right direction. First class isn't handled on Saturdays anyway. It's all 2C, 3C, and UBBM on Saturday. I think cutting out at least one day, Wednesday for example, will help too. I don't see why there HAS to be every weekday delivery anymore. Management also has to replace all the old timers making $25+ an hour with new hires at the $14 an hour rate because there is such a bad culture at one of the plants I worked at. They knew no one could touch them so they all slacked off. At the plant I mainly called home, it was smaller and 99% of the people busted their ass and I really miss working with them. ANY parcel that was going out of the DC area was my responsibility this past year (sorted by me) and I was put in charge of that, as a temp, because of the awesome management there that were great at training me at my job. The USPS needs more people like them.
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
If you think the economy's bad now, watch what happens if the Post Office goes under. There are a lot of small businesses (and even a good number of large businesses, Netflix being the first that immediately comes to mind) that still depend on the Post Office for day-to-day operations. Even THIS Congress isn't so shortsighted as to let their differences kill off something as essential as the Post Office, right?
Originally posted by It's FalseIf you think the economy's bad now, watch what happens if the Post Office goes under. There are a lot of small businesses (and even a good number of large businesses, Netflix being the first that immediately comes to mind) that still depend on the Post Office for day-to-day operations. Even THIS Congress isn't so shortsighted as to let their differences kill off something as essential as the Post Office, right?
Right?
(edited by It's False on 10.9.11 1220)
I would debate whether or not the post office is essential. I think there are certainly ways to get items delivered without the postal service, and I believe that private enterprise would fill in some of the holes if the USPS were gone. I don't want that to happen, but I'm not in agreement that it's essential.
Originally posted by It's FalseIf you think the economy's bad now, watch what happens if the Post Office goes under. There are a lot of small businesses (and even a good number of large businesses, Netflix being the first that immediately comes to mind) that still depend on the Post Office for day-to-day operations. Even THIS Congress isn't so shortsighted as to let their differences kill off something as essential as the Post Office, right?
Right?
(edited by It's False on 10.9.11 1220)
I would debate whether or not the post office is essential. I think there are certainly ways to get items delivered without the postal service, and I believe that private enterprise would fill in some of the holes if the USPS were gone. I don't want that to happen, but I'm not in agreement that it's essential.
Where the post office is still quite essential is rural areas, especially in the Middle of the country. UPS and especially FedEx suck as far as pick up and delivery goes. My personal experience has been that the post office out here in the middle of nowhere is more efficient and quicker.
What I found most remarkable about this story is his choosing that young Yale graduate to receive some of his stock; I've never really heard of the guy before, but receiving part ownership of National Review is one hell of an honor, I'd think.
Thread rated: 6.60
#
