4 ms·

39 U.S.C. § 101

twblalock 6y ago
That 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 ago
  Among 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 ago
    That is completely different from treating all mail equally. In fact, it is the opposite of that.
- cryptoz 6y ago
  The 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 ago
    The 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 ago
This 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

39 U.S.C. § 101

That 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 ago
Among 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 ago
  That is completely different from treating all mail equally. In fact, it is the opposite of that.
cryptoz 6y ago
The 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 ago
  The 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 ago

This 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