PDA

View Full Version : No more mail? What would Ben Franklin think?



Teh One Who Knocks
09-10-2011, 02:43 PM
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Pres


http://i.imgur.com/AEWvl.jpg

WASHINGTON – Imagine a nation without the Postal Service.

No more birthday cards and bills or magazines and catalogs filling the mailbox. It's a worst-case scenario being painted for an organization that lost $8.5 billion in 2010 and seems headed deeper into the red this year.

"A lot of people would miss it," says Tony Conway, a 34-year post office veteran who now heads the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers.

Businesses, too.

The letter carrier or clerk is the face of the mail. But hanging in the balance is a $1.1 trillion mailing industry that employs more than 8 million people in direct mail, periodicals, catalogs, financial services, charities and other businesses that depend on the post office.

Who would carry mail to the Hualapai Indian Reservation in the Grand Canyon? To islands off the coast of Maine? To rural villages in Alaska? Only the post office goes to those places and thousands of others in the United States, and all for 44 cents. And it's older than the United States itself.

Ernest Burkes Sr. says his bills, magazines and diabetes medication are mailed to his home in Canton, in northeast Ohio, and he frequently visits the post office down the street to send first-class mail, mostly documents for the tax service he runs. As his business increased over the past three decades, so has the load of mail he sends, and it's still pretty steady.

"I don't know what I'd do if they'd close down the post offices," said Burkes, who doesn't use rival delivery services such as UPS or FedEx. "They need to help them, just like they helped some of these other places, automobiles and others."

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe is struggling to keep his money-losing organization afloat as more and more people are ditching mail in favor of the Internet, causing the lucrative first-class mail flow to plummet.

Donahoe has a plan to turn things around, if he can get the attention of Congress and pass a series of hurdles, including union concerns.

"The Postal Service is not going out of business," postal spokesman David Partenheimer said. "We will continue to deliver the mail as we have for more than 200 years. The postmaster general has developed a plan that will return the Postal Service to financial stability. We continue to do what we can on our own to achieve this plan and we need Congress to do its part to get us there."

He acknowledged that if Congress doesn't act, the post office could reach a point next summer where it doesn't have the money to keep operating.

That wouldn't sit well with Mimi Raskin, a wine and antiques store owner in Grants Pass, Ore., who likes her birthday card mailed. "If you get a birthday card on the Internet, it's like, well, I didn't care about you enough to go to a store, buy a card that suited your personality, and mail it," she said.

Donahoe and his predecessor, John Potter, have warned for years of the problems and stressed that the post office will be unable to make a mandated $5.5 billion payment due Sept. 30 to a fund for future medical benefits for retirees.

A 90-day delay on the payment has been suggested, but postal officials and others in the industry say a long-term solution is needed.

Donahoe has one. It includes laying off staff beyond the 110,000 cut in the past four years, closing as many as 3,700 offices, eliminating Saturday delivery and switching from the federal retirement plan to one of its own.

Cliff Guffey, president of the American Postal Workers Union, called the proposal "outrageous, illegal and despicable."

A contract signed in March protects many workers from layoffs. Guffey said the attempt to change that now "is in utter disregard for the legal requirement to bargain with the APWU in good faith." Other unions, including the National Association of Letter Carriers, are negotiating their contracts with the post office.

Yet Donahoe's efforts are drawing praise from people such as Conway, the head of the nonprofit mailers, who says these are necessary steps that officials have shied away from in the past.

Several bills proposing ways to fix the agency are circulating in Congress. One, by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., would impose a control board to make the tough decisions.

When it was first introduced, the bill was perceived as "way out there," Conway said. But as the postal financial problems have become more obvious, "you're seeing people thinking maybe it isn't that extreme."

Gene Del Polito, of the trade group American Association for Postal Commerce, said now that Donahoe has offered a plan, "why not give him the authority do to do what needs to be done." If that fails, then a control board could be instituted, he said.

Closing offices seems an easy way to save, but members of Congress never want cuts in their districts, and while the public may mail less, people still want their local office to stay open.

The changes that Donahoe are proposing would mean a different post office, but one that still operates for people such as Jovita Camesa, who's 75 and lives in a downtown Los Angeles retirement complex. She said she's sending more first-class mail than ever due to her expanding circle of grandchildren.

Camesa said she wouldn't think to use the Internet for those birthday and holiday greetings, or start going online to seek out the articles she now reads in the issues of Vogue, Readers Digest, Prevention and other magazines that are delivered to her. "I'm not interested in the Internet or computers," she said. "I'm very traditional."

Ellen Levine, editorial director of Hearst Magazines, told a Senate hearing that the Internet has not eliminated the need for mail delivery of magazines.

"Nearly all publishers use the United States Postal Service to deliver their magazines to subscribers," she said. "While most consumer titles are also available on newsstands, mail subscriptions will remain the major component of hard-copy magazine circulation in the United States for the foreseeable future." Overall, Levine said subscriptions account for about 90 percent of magazine circulation.

Olive Ayhens, an artist who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y., says she pays her bills online but still uses first-class mail. She was mailing announcements of her newest gallery opening; one was going to her son in London.

"Less than a dollar, I'm sending to London," she said during a stop at the James A. Farley Post Office in Manhattan.

The internet, along with the advent of online bill paying, has contributed to a sharp decline in mail handled by the post office, from 207 billion in 2001 to 171 billion last year. Although the price of stamps has increased from 34 cents to 44 cents over the same period, it is not enough to cover the post office's bills, in part because of higher labor costs.

Yet one of the biggest problems isn't mail flow or labor or other costs. Rather, it's a requirement imposed by Congress five years ago that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits, so why not drop it for the post office.

Like everything in Washington, it's not that simple.

The Postal Service is not included in the federal budget, but the Treasury Department account that receives that payment is.

That means that when the post office deposits that money, it counts as income in the federal budget. So, if it doesn't make the payment, the federal budget deficit appears $5.5 billion bigger, something few members of Congress are likely to favor.

In announcing his bill, Issa warned of a need to avoid a "bailout" of the post office, which does not receive taxpayer money for its operations.

Others, however, have characterized the $5.5 billion payments as a post office bailout of the federal budget because it makes the deficit appear smaller.

"We have made that argument," said Del Polito. But it has been rejected with the argument that the payments are required by law and ending them requires a change in the law.

That problem of appearing to increase the federal deficit creates a reluctance to deal with the matter directly, Del Polito said.

So where does that leave the post office and those Americans who don't have access to the internet?

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., suggested more people start sending passionate letters as a way to save the agency.

As good an idea as love missives may be, they are unlikely to be enough.

Teh One Who Knocks
09-10-2011, 02:43 PM
IMO here's a couple of things that could help fix the US Postal Service. A big one has already been proposed - do away with Saturday delivery. FedEx and UPS don't deliver on Saturday (unless you pay a premium for delivery, and that's only for overnight delivery) so why should the Post Office? People can do without mail on Saturdays.

The other issue has to do with price. When you get right down to it, what the US Postal Service does for a measly 44 cents is remarkable. They deliver to anyone in the US with an address, as is mentioned in the story. FedEx and UPS have sliding price scales based on distance and there are just some places they won't deliver at all, you have to go pick up your package at the closest office to your residence. So, the Post Office should just increase prices across the board (if they want to keep it uniform) or come up with a sliding scale like FedEx and UPS. If it actually costs $4.50 to deliver a letter to some remote place in Alaska, then they should charge $4.50 for it instead of charging 44 cents and losing money.

Godfather
09-10-2011, 03:43 PM
I get nothing in the mail anymore that is important. Nothing. And I don't see why anyone else would need to either.

My cell phone bills, banking bills, miscellaneous bills, portfolio statements, notifications from my favorite businesses. It all comes online now.

As for my job... we use private couriers and most stuff is sent to clients by scanning and emailing. The only think we use Canada post for at work is to do marketing, and that it's not effective. We need to look towards a better website, email marketing and social media because mailouts go straight in the garbage when they get to people's doors.

For me: no more Canada/US Postal service wouldn't be a big deal at all.

DemonGeminiX
09-10-2011, 03:47 PM
It would be a big deal to all of the people who are employed by it, GF.

Godfather
09-10-2011, 03:56 PM
They're in a failing business. The US and Canadian Postal Service can't just employ out of pity...

Of course it'd be a HUGE loss of employment. But what's the alternative? Prop up a redundant piece of infrastructure indefinitely?

DemonGeminiX
09-10-2011, 04:03 PM
I'm not being sarcastic. In an economy that's slim on hiring nowadays, where are you gonna put all of the people that used to work for the postal service?

Godfather
09-10-2011, 04:08 PM
I'm not being sarcastic. In an economy that's slim on hiring nowadays, where are you gonna put all of the people that used to work for the postal service?

I'm not sure if US Post is like Canada Post.. but fuck Canada Post. Unionized/governmental lazy asses who sit around and bitch all day, work for 6 hours and clock out for 8. It's a culture of 'me me me' and zero work ethic. I've had friends work for them, and worked at a building shared with a major office of theirs. What I saw pissed me off almost every day. Jesus you wouldn't believe the smoke breaks, and the bullshit they whine about while they're on them a dozen times a day. I don't even want to know how bad their efficiency would score, and how much tax payer dollars are wasted on their inter-office B.S. When they went on strike earlier this year (because a starting wage of $18/hour is apparently not enough in this economy... twats)... nobody cared!!!

At $8 billion in losses are rising, with revenue down $67 billion... Canada Post's cousin in the Us is going to need some clever ideas to keep it viable in the next few years, even if it does employ half a million people.

Loser
09-10-2011, 04:14 PM
Knock it back to 3 days a week, fire off half of your lazy and inept employees, and maybe drop your ridiculous benefits package to something more reasonable.


-edit-

I'm not sure if US Post is like Canada Post.. but fuck Canada Post. Unionized/governmental lazy asses who sit around and bitch all day, work for 6 hours and clock out for 8. It's a culture of 'me me me' and zero work ethic. I've had friends work for them, and worked at a building shared with a major office of theirs. What I saw pissed me off almost every day. Jesus you wouldn't believe the smoke breaks, and the bullshit they whine about while they're on them a dozen times a day. I don't even want to know how bad their efficiency would score, and how much tax payer dollars are wasted on their inter-office B.S. When they went on strike earlier this year (because a starting wage of $18/hour is apparently not enough in this economy... twats)... nobody cared!!!

At $8 billion in losses are rising, with revenue down $67 billion... Canada Post's cousin in the Us is going to need some clever ideas to keep it viable in the next few years, even if it does employ half a million people.


This is exactly what it's like.

DemonGeminiX
09-10-2011, 04:14 PM
That's not just the post office, that's just people with a false sense of entitlement and it's all over the place. You can see that everywhere you look. The job didn't give them that.

Teh One Who Knocks
09-10-2011, 04:28 PM
Unionized/governmental lazy asses who sit around and bitch all day, work for 6 hours and clock out for 8. It's a culture of 'me me me' and zero work ethic.


This is exactly what it's like.

Unfortunately that point can't be argued...my local Post Office is a joke. It's too small already to serve the amount of people living in this suburb of Denver now, and you can walk in there during the busiest time of the day and you will be lucky if you see 2 of the 4 stations manned by a postal worker. Most of the time there is only one person serving customers while the rest are on 'break'...even though the line of customers fills the lobby and winds its way out into the outer section of the Post Office where the mailboxes are. I have waited in line at the post office for more than 30 minutes before just because there was only one person manning the counter. These people are paid a lot of money and they don't care about their jobs, just the big ol' paycheck and government benefits that go with it.

I absolutely loathe it when I have to go to the Post Office to pick up a letter or package.

JoeyB
09-10-2011, 10:42 PM
IMO here's a couple of things that could help fix the US Postal Service. A big one has already been proposed - do away with Saturday delivery. FedEx and UPS don't deliver on Saturday (unless you pay a premium for delivery, and that's only for overnight delivery) so why should the Post Office? People can do without mail on Saturdays.

The other issue has to do with price. When you get right down to it, what the US Postal Service does for a measly 44 cents is remarkable. They deliver to anyone in the US with an address, as is mentioned in the story. FedEx and UPS have sliding price scales based on distance and there are just some places they won't deliver at all, you have to go pick up your package at the closest office to your residence. So, the Post Office should just increase prices across the board (if they want to keep it uniform) or come up with a sliding scale like FedEx and UPS. If it actually costs $4.50 to deliver a letter to some remote place in Alaska, then they should charge $4.50 for it instead of charging 44 cents and losing money.

They've been discussing killing Saturday delivery for a couple of decades, and have not acted on it. I too agree it would be a good money saver. The problem is the workers have a structure of five days work for a six day job, and that is inefficient. They need to either scrap the extra day, or treat it the way other six and seven day businesses do...normal pay, or part time workers to fill the slots.

As for a sliding scale...I disagree...the magic of the post office is the equality of the first class stamp. Plus...how do you make first class mail pay per destination without adding a ton of workers and systems to regulate the process? It would be messy and cost prohibitive.

I think the logical option is, keep it simple, keep it the same rate for all, but make the actual delivery more cost effective. The best way to do that is to remove most rural post offices, and stop home delivery for anyone not within, say, fifty miles of a major urban area. As for delivery for the remote areas, you do two things:

1. Maintain enough of the existing rural post offices so that no one is more than fifty miles from a post office.
2. Let those people come and pick up their mail.

It might suck for those individuals, but it makes sense economically.

A third option would be a 'limited delivery' schedule...which I envision as taking all those remote money draining deliveries, and congealing them into once or twice a month home drop offs. You'd still get home delivery, just in occasional batches.

A fourth option is something you see in apartments, condos, mobile home communities and the like, and it's fucking brilliant.

You have a central pick up location IN THE COMMUNITY, but that can be quickly and efficiently serviced. You still get daily mail, and it saves a lot of cost as one employee can stock a hundred mailboxes in the time it would take to home deliver a fraction of the mail. And people only have to walk a short distance to retrieve their stuff.

Our community uses this, and even has parcel lockers...if you get a delivery too large for your box, they place a key to one of the lockers inside with your mail. It's really brilliant. This should be done in most suburban areas.

Loser
09-10-2011, 11:07 PM
Removing rural post offices would never work. Making people drive an hour to pick up their mail is absolutely ridiculous, and would hurt business, rather than help.

The post office by my house has 2 employees, serves 4 cities/areas, and is infinitely more efficient then the post offices back in the city.

The problem is lazy inept employees with bloated pay and outrageous benefits.

And why just remove saturday? Why not just move to a three day week. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. How much money would be saved then? ;)

JoeyB
09-10-2011, 11:24 PM
Removing rural post offices would never work. Making people drive an hour to pick up their mail is absolutely ridiculous, and would hurt business, rather than help.

The post office by my house has 2 employees, serves 4 cities/areas, and is infinitely more efficient then the post offices back in the city.

The problem is lazy inept employees with bloated pay and outrageous benefits.

And why just remove saturday? Why not just move to a three day week. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. How much money would be saved then? ;)

Three days a week delivery would only work IF you also made the delivery people work two other days sorting mail. On the surface this might appear to be fine, but who do you fire, all the sorters or all the delivery people?

And I'm only talking about making a small percentage of the population drive to get their mail...which is vastly more cost efficient than driving it to them.

I proposed several options, which could be used together. I think that direct home delivery is quickly becoming an impossible option in today's suburban sprawl.

Remember...there was a time when home delivery was not the norm, especially for rural areas. No harm in returning to a proven, cost effective system.

EDIT: Part of what I'm trying to drive home is that the less labor involved...the cheaper the process. Home delivery in rural and suburban ares is the most labor intensive process of the mail. On location but centralized delivery as I explained above and seen in apartments, condos and mobile home communities utilizes far less labor but still gives easy mail access. Basically: it's far cheaper to service them than the people in suburban or rural locations. Far cheaper.

The other money drain is all the nonsense in the post offices...endless crap just to send one tiny parcel. The post office has addressed this recently to some degree with no-weigh, pre paid parcels and the sort. You've probably seen them, as long as it fits in the box, it's fine. This is the future and they need to intensify it. You could literally just have vending machines in the post office to sell the right size box, fuck the weight. Buy it, pack it, and drop it in a bin. Done. And it means no direct and costly contact with a worker.

The only time you should need to talk to a worker is for out of country mail, certified mail, and the like. And those are already priced at a high premium that means the cost of the employee is covered.

Loser
09-10-2011, 11:30 PM
Three days a week delivery would only work IF you also made the delivery people work two other days sorting mail. On the surface this might appear to be fine, but who do you fire, all the sorters or all the delivery people?

And I'm only talking about making a small percentage of the population drive to get their mail...which is vastly more cost efficient than driving it to them.

I proposed several options, which could be used together. I think that direct home delivery is quickly becoming an impossible option in today's suburban sprawl.

Remember...there was a time when home delivery was not the norm, especially for rural areas. No harm in returning to a proven, cost effective system.


Cost effective for who?

Gas is 4$ a gallon again. You basically want thousands of people to spend 20$, 1-3 times a week to pick up their mail, instead of employing 2 or 3 people at local offices. You don't have to crunch the numbers to see that's asinine.

JoeyB
09-10-2011, 11:42 PM
Cost effective for who?

Gas is 4$ a gallon again. You basically want thousands of people to spend 20$, 1-3 times a week to pick up their mail, instead of employing 2 or 3 people at local offices. You don't have to crunch the numbers to see that's asinine.

Yes, I do want to cut it! If you live in a remote area, you should have to face that some aspects of your life might be more costly and bear that cost. Pizza costs more in Hawaii and Alaska for this reason. If home delivery is prohibitively expensive, it's cut. Sorry, but it's only logical. And why would they need to get mail three times a week? Get it once a week, or less. And remember, I did also propose an alternate 'bundled' home delivery for these people that could happen once or twice a month. Home delivery of mail is NOT something that always existed, and is a luxury, not a right.

Loser
09-11-2011, 12:08 AM
Yes, I do want to cut it! If you live in a remote area, you should have to face that some aspects of your life might be more costly and bear that cost. Pizza costs more in Hawaii and Alaska for this reason. If home delivery is prohibitively expensive, it's cut. Sorry, but it's only logical. And why would they need to get mail three times a week? Get it once a week, or less. And remember, I did also propose an alternate 'bundled' home delivery for these people that could happen once or twice a month. Home delivery of mail is NOT something that always existed, and is a luxury, not a right.

The problem is, it's not logical, you're basically proposing alienating how many potential customers? In the long run, that would hurt the bottom line. You already have the offices open in those locations, it's more feasible to just half the employee workforce or cut the amount of days mail is delivered.

The post office by me does one city, and 4 unincorporated areas. Around 10,000-15,000 recipients. That office has, at most, 4-6 employees. Is it more reasonable to employ 6 people at 30k a year? or have 10,000-15,000 people spending 40$ a week in gas? which is 400,000-600,000$ in gas.

Do the math on this, to hire 6 employees would roughly be 3500$ a week. If each of those 10,000 people get even one letter a week, it's 4800$ in postage paid to the post office. I understand this is on a much larger scale with other costs to the postal service, but think about how much revenue they would actually be losing.

Hal-9000
09-11-2011, 12:44 AM
I agree with GF's statements...it is the job that creates the attitude/environment.

I've worked for the post office and we use part of their services at work.The local letter carriers actually work approximately 2.5 hours of a day and complain about wage/benefits constantly.
Their wage here in Canada is a joke as compared to the actual work they do.The inside workers work a little harder but you tell me something gentle readers - What other job can you walk
into without experience or secondary schooling requirements and make 19/hr with benefits and join a strong union? Not many...

Southern Belle
09-11-2011, 12:48 AM
They need to raise their prices and abolish the postal workers union. They're working for the government ffs, why do they need a union?

Southern Belle
09-11-2011, 12:49 AM
The Post Office is a constitutional entity.

Hal-9000
09-11-2011, 12:51 AM
I for one would welcome not getting any more paper mail/junk mail/flyers....I work in the printing industry and it takes money to create each one of those junky advertisements, not to mention supplies like paper and ink.

Southern Belle
09-11-2011, 12:58 AM
My husband works in the print industry as well. Junk mail probably pays the PO less than regular mail but I don't know for sure.

JoeyB
09-11-2011, 04:43 AM
Cost effective for who?

Gas is 4$ a gallon again. You basically want thousands of people to spend 20$, 1-3 times a week to pick up their mail, instead of employing 2 or 3 people at local offices. You don't have to crunch the numbers to see that's asinine.


The problem is, it's not logical, you're basically proposing alienating how many potential customers? In the long run, that would hurt the bottom line. You already have the offices open in those locations, it's more feasible to just half the employee workforce or cut the amount of days mail is delivered.

The post office by me does one city, and 4 unincorporated areas. Around 10,000-15,000 recipients. That office has, at most, 4-6 employees. Is it more reasonable to employ 6 people at 30k a year? or have 10,000-15,000 people spending 40$ a week in gas? which is 400,000-600,000$ in gas.

Do the math on this, to hire 6 employees would roughly be 3500$ a week. If each of those 10,000 people get even one letter a week, it's 4800$ in postage paid to the post office. I understand this is on a much larger scale with other costs to the postal service, but think about how much revenue they would actually be losing.

First off, if it costs someone twenty bucks in gas to collect mail, why conversely should the post office be forced to spend the same amount to deliver a piece of mail that has a forty four cent stamp on it?

You live in an area with ten to fifteen thousand residents? Your mail wouldn't be affected by my plan. I'm talking about what Lance was talking about, the remote areas where a handful of customers exist.

And, as I keep saying, HOME delivery of mail is not a right, it's just a service they provide. It's not something you have a guaranteed right to enjoy. Having to go to a post office and retrieve your mail does not deny people access to the use of the federal postal service. And, home delivery has not even always been a standard. No harm in exploring alternates.

Loser
09-11-2011, 01:24 PM
First off, if it costs someone twenty bucks in gas to collect mail, why conversely should the post office be forced to spend the same amount to deliver a piece of mail that has a forty four cent stamp on it?


Why should thousands of people waste 20$ each, when one delivery person can waste ONE tank of gas?

Your missing the point I'm trying to make. It's more cost effective and reasonable to trim the fat from USPS than to kill service to thousands upon thousands of customers.

Back where I used to live, there was 4 post offices in one city, each having no less then 10 employees. No matter which one you went to, there was a 20-45 minute wait just to buy a fucking stamp.

The problem isn't costs, or who gets delivery, it's the lazy inept employees. They have their cushy unionised job security making 20$ an hour with absolutely RIDICULOUS benefits, and they don't give a shit.

Well, fire off half of them, and hire in competent people who actually give a fuck.

FBD
09-11-2011, 03:53 PM
Part of the issue is, less and less of us rely on mail less and less. 5 out of 6 days I get garbage in the mail, nothing of any consequence for the most part. Coupons, fliers and shit that I really dont care about. Yet, all of us still subsidize the ever living shit out of the post office so that a letter might cost 45 cents. This is a prime example of the government distorting the market - supremely so since it has a monopoly on mail delivery! The post office is losing money hand over fist unless you listen to their union. So something's gotta give here, we simply need to start seeing real prices, real value reflected, and fug having so much subsidy.