3 ms·
Yeah how about non-amazon shops?
by ex3ndr 6y ago
Yeah how about non-amazon shops?
- twblalock 6y agoIf they were as good as Amazon I would buy from them, but they aren't, so I don't. This is just the USPS giving service to what people care about most. They have no obligation to treat all sources of mail equally. Non-Amazon retailers are of course free to pay for better service, and if they can't afford it, then they don't deserve it. If they were as good as Amazon they could afford it, as a result of customers paying for what they want.
- lmm 6y ago> They have no obligation to treat all sources of mail equally. Yes they do, they have a legal monopoly on certain kinds of delivery and that comes with corresponding obligations.
- twblalock 6y agoNo they don't. I don't believe you. Point us to the statute that says they have this obligation.
- _delirium 6y ago39 U.S.C. § 101
- twblalock 6y agoThat doesn't say the USPS has to treat all sources of mail equally. It says they have to deliver to everyone, which they do.
- _delirium 6y agoAmong other things, it says that the USPS must prioritize expeditious delivery of "important letter mail". This has usually been interpreted to mean that traditional postal service – first-class letter envelopes – must have top priority, above things like package delivery, contracted last-mile Amazon delivery, etc.
- twblalock 6y agoThat is completely different from treating all mail equally. In fact, it is the opposite of that.
- cryptoz 6y agoThe linked text clearly states that the Post Office cannot do what it is currently doing. > It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. Prompt, reliable and efficient services does not including refusing to deliver priority, directly-paid-for mail on its routes and instead prioritizing other mail based on a political decision from the top ranks. That is not efficient. Prompt. Or reliable.
- twblalock 6y agoThe law says that the USPS needs to provide services to all communities. It does not say all packages need to be treated equally. Show me where it says that. > Prompt, reliable and efficient services does not including refusing to deliver priority, directly-paid-for mail on its routes and instead prioritizing other mail based on a political decision from the top ranks. That isn't what the statute says. That's your own opinion. Show me where the statute says that.
- mft_ 6y agoThis seems most relevant: > In determining all policies for postal services, the Postal Service shall give the highest consideration to the requirement for the most expeditious collection, transportation, and delivery of important letter mail. [1] ...but it also doesn’t seem binding. There’s enough wiggle-room in that language for important letter mail to not always be prioritised, and of course one could argue about what constitutes important letter mail, versus less important letter mail. (Is it reasonable to assume that where there is such an amount of wiggle room in such a high level policy, it was intentional, and also intended that the wiggle room should be explored? Or is this just the impact of vested interests?) [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/101
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- detaro 6y agoPeople care more about amazon packages than paychecks and medication?
- gspr 6y agoYeah, this is a severe competitiveness inhibitor.
- stale2002 6y agoWell they can pay for priority mail as well if they want that level of service.
- jfk13 6y agoDoes Amazon pay extra for priority service? According to the first sentence of the article: > The delivery of first-class and priority mail is being intentionally delayed so that letter carriers can prioritize the delivery of Amazon packages it's priority and first-class mail that is being delayed in favour of (fourth-class) Amazon packages.
- twblalock 6y agoIf they pay more, then they should get more. The USPS is not a welfare service. It is supposed to compete now.