5 ms·
USPS to Cut Saturday Mail
- melling 14y agoI get an error a out being able to view on "my mobile device." Yahoo needs to move a little quicker on mobile.
- jevinskie 14y agoAnd they flat out refuse to give you an option to see the "desktop" version. Not going to bother, sadly.
- TrisMcC 14y agoThe plan is to cut Saturday letter delivery but keep package delivery intact.
- BudVVeezer 14y agoIf you have to get congressional approval anyway, why not attempt to fix the underlying problem by not requiring all employee pensions to be funded up front? IIRC, that's the crux of their financial woes because it ties up billions in a move that no other industry is required to make.
- glesica 14y agoIt seems that certain factions within Congress are actively trying to kill the USPS, hence the pension requirement. Eliminating Saturday delivery reduces the services that USPS offers, so perhaps it has a better chance of passing...
- freehunter 14y agoI'm getting that feeling too. From not letting them cut Saturday delivery to needing to pay $5.5b upfront every year, someone in Congress wants the USPS to fail, and they're willing to play the long game (USPS has been struggling for a while). The question is who, why, and what is supposed to replace them? Is UPS or FedEx going to start delivering my mail? Again, Congress won't let them. The nation would shut down without the USPS.
- newbie12 14y agoThe USPS is a zombie. It going to collapse in 10-15 years and stick taxpayers with $40 billion in unfunded retirement health benefits, among other costs. Congress is trying to get ahead of the problem with the pre-funding requirement.
- freehunter 14y agoTrying to get ahead of that problem by causing it to happen sooner? The USPS is taking out loans to "pay" this requirement. They're not allowed to go out of business. They're not allowed to cut costs. They're not allowed to receive federal money. They're forced further into debt every year. The USPS is the whipping boy of Congress. If Congress really wanted the USPS to be around long term, they would actually help them rather than making them pay this retirement fund with loans.
- glesica 14y agoSo sticking the taxpayers with a huge load of debt they incurred to fund the pensions is better? Also, I see no evidence that USPS will ever cease to exist. Perhaps shrink in size and scope, but not cease to exist. At some point people need physical things to be moved from point A to point B, and USPS is one organization that does just that. Calling it a zombie without explaining yourself is just ignorant.
- newbie12 14y agoIt is retiree health care that has to be pre-funded, through 2016. The USPS was operating that benefit program as pay-as-you-go, which was creating a huge unfunded liability for taxpayers. http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432/The_Truth_About_The_Post_Office039s_Financial_Mess http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432/The_Truth_About_The_Post_Off...
- jellicle 14y agoNo. The USPS has to prefund the next 75 years' worth of estimated healthcare expenses. If they estimate that someone will need healthcare in the year 2088, they have to put money aside for it today. That bullshit requirement which no other company or institution in the world labors under is creating an artificial cashflow crisis at the USPS.
- jcampbell1 14y agoAll companies have to fund pensions up front. Retiree healthcare doesn't have to be funded up front, but very few companies provide this benefit. It is rare that someone can retire at 50, and have their healthcare paid for by their employer for the rest of their lives (minus Medicare payments). This exceptional benefit should be pre-funded.
- kaonashi 14y agoBecause then they wouldn't have an excuse to cut the post office. Never underestimate the sheer cynicism of politicians.
- smackfu 14y agoBest part of the article: "Over the past several years, the Postal Service has advocated shifting to a five-day delivery schedule for mail and packages — and it repeatedly but unsuccessfully appealed to Congress to approve the move. ... It was not immediately clear how the service could eliminate Saturday mail without congressional approval."
- eli 14y agoYes. The US Congress makes for a terrible boss. You can't price your own goods and if you have a great year you don't get to reinvest the profits.
- Raphael 14y agoDoes this mean I'll get 5/6 of the junk mail? Or will it be redistributed between the other 5 days?
- bradleyland 14y agoThe number of delivery days will have no impact on the number of junk mail senders. The two are not coupled in any way.
- jack-r-abbit 14y agoI am just going to assume that every bit of mail that would have been delivered on Saturday will just sit somewhere all weekend and be delivered on Monday. I doubt there will be any actual redistribution... just a heavier Monday mail bundle.
- unwind 14y agoIt's interesting that a country such as the US which, in my view from the outside, seems to generally oppose far-reaching public services, still has a postal service that delivers mail and packages on Saturdays. I'm from Sweden, which I guess falls somewhere close to the opposite end of the spectrum in many people's eyes, and we've never had that, in my lifetime at least. :)
- rdouble 14y agoEstablishment of a postal service is actually in the US Constitution.
- sageikosa 14y agoI'm thinking of applying for a Letter of Marques, since it is in the Constitution.
- plorkyeran 14y agoAs the article mentioned, the USPS isn't funded by taxes.
- Gmo 14y agoWell, in France (where I come from) and the Netherlands (where I currently live), there is mail delivery on Saturday. And I have to say I would find it sad if it would be gone.
- ry0ohki 14y agoThe mail used to be delivered several times PER DAY. Saturday delivery is a relic of that bygone era. I probably only need to receive postal mail once a week. Maybe three times a week during holiday season. Saturday won't be missed here.
- jstalin 14y agoEnd the government-mandated monopoly on mail -- let the market take care of the issue. Probably 50% of the mail I get is stuff I don't even want in the first place. In fact, it's a criminal act to deliver mail without paying the USPS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1693 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1693
- eli 14y agoMy understanding is that multiple competing private postal services has not played out well in countries that have tried it. (For example, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n09/james-meek/in-the-sorting-office http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n09/james-meek/in-the-sorting-offic...) And presumably the same number of companies would want to send you junk mail regardless of who owns the post office...
- jcampbell1 14y agoI remember being a kid and getting a call from the post master telling me I could go to jail for putting my lawn service flyers in people's mailboxes. Fortunately, in the rural area I lived, the mailboxes had separate slots for newspapers, so I just put the flyers in the newspaper slot.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y agoYour second point has nothing at all to do with your first point (unwanted mail); and is barely the USPS's fault. I disagree with letting the "market" decide when it comes to vital infrastructure (mail, internet, roads, telephone, electricity, water) because the "market" is not always a healthy place (e.g. see US internet/cable/telephone market, see UK train market, et al). It is one of the few areas where a state run monopoly might actually help business. While it certainly hurts opportunities within that specific sector, in really helps other businesses in other sectors compete globally.
- Vivtek 14y agoHey - great way to make sure nobody can afford to deliver rural mail. That ought to work great. "Let the market take care of the issue" really isn't always the best policy.
- dmm 14y agoIf self-driving google robots were delivering mail it could be delivered continuously.
- largesse 14y agoI'd like to find the best way to "opt out" of the postal system. When I go out of town and put hold on my mail, they never work. The postal worker just delivers until the box is full and then returns the letters. Of course, the box is full because of junk mail (which you can't opt out of). I'd consider a post office box, but it is inconvenient, plus I'd have to change my address with everyone who sends me legitimate mail - you know, the things that you still can't handle electronically like W2s, etc. I've heard that there are services which can have your mail forwarded to, who scan it and send it to you electronically, but I'd be concerned about identity theft. It's just a broken system and there's no way to opt out.
- IgorPartola 14y agoIndividual advertisers such as Red Plum let you opt out of their mailings. You can also opt out of credit card offers and the cash advance checks on your existing cards. Spent 20 minutes on it: it will save you a lot of time in the long run.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- charliepark 14y agoI agree with a lot of your thoughts, but as a counterpoint, I'm impressed by the UX of the "put my mail on hold" process at the USPS site every time I use it. I'm guessing there's real variance in the quality controls from office to office. But I have no idea why the USPS doesn't offer a "we'll scan your mail before we deliver it, and you can select what you want" service, like the idea laid out here: https://tonywebster.com/2012/07/reinventing-the-united-states-postal-service/ https://tonywebster.com/2012/07/reinventing-the-united-state...
- largesse 14y agoSimple answer: they would lose money from the junk mailers. It's a sizable part of their revenue, possibly more than half.
- rohansingh 14y agoThe sad thing is that the USPS is not all that bad off financially. Rather, Congress is requiring them to make completely unrealistic pension payments decades in advance, for employees who may or may not exist yet. No other organization could operate under such a burden, and no other federal agency faces such a requirement. It makes one wonder if the requirement is in place as an attempt to kill the USPS and privatize mail delivery entirely.
- cdcarter 14y agoDo you have any more information about this?
- bradleyland 14y agoThis is a rather lengthy interview from 2011, but if you search for the word pension, you can find some relevant information: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service039s_Finances http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service...
- rohansingh 14y agoI looked around for a succinct article that reported on my assertion to include with my original comment, but was unable to find one. There are a number of articles on the USPS that deal with this topic somewhere in the body though. Just search for 'usps pension congress' and you should see articles from Reuters, The Guardian, Forbes, and others that back up this assertion.
- whalesalad 14y agoRelevant? http://www.howwesavedthepostoffice.com/ http://www.howwesavedthepostoffice.com/
- jellicle 14y agoSince the people responsible for the requirement have said explicitly that it's an attempt to kill the USPS and privatize mail entirely, you don't really have to wonder. Congressman Issa, who is leading this charge, sees the USPS as a giant union that needs breaking, regardless of the damage to the United States from losing what is currently the world's fastest and cheapest postal system.
- bradleyland 14y agoI wonder if Netflix DVDs are considered packages or mail? Saturday delivery worked really well for Netflix. If we dropped our Netflix disk at the main Post Office by Thursday @ 2PM, we could expect a disk on Saturday.
- stephengoodwin 14y agoMany think Netflix is receiving special treatment from USPS: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/03/the-cost-difference-in-mailing-netflx-vs-gamefly-all-of-gameflys-profits/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/03/the-cost-difference-in...
- marknutter 14y agoOne less day I won't receive kindling. Good riddance.
- rpledge 14y agoI think Canada Post should switch to 3 day delivery for residential addresses. Given the push to electronic bills and payments (many companies charge extra if you opt for a paper bill) 90% of whats in my mailbox is junk mail. Improved parcel service would be nice however, online shopping should be increasing interest in that product.
- robomartin 14y agoWell, 75% to 90% of my daily mail is unsolicited junk. I estimate that we throw out five to seven pounds of junk mail per week. If this is typical of most households this is a remarkable amount of stuff that is being thrown out on a daily basis. Our of memory, the majority of the legitimate mail we get is from government agencies (bills, voting packets, etc.), a couple of catalogs and companies who haven't gone 100% online yet. We switched to online banking and online bill payments a long, long time ago. Nearly every package delivery we receive is via FedEx or UPS. You have to wonder, if the USPS was not allowed to deliver bulk junk mail, what would their financials look like? According to this US census, there are over 132 million housing units (homes and apartments) in the US. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html If each of these homes is throwing out just TWO pounds of junk mail every week --just TWO POUNDS, not five like we do-- that represents TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR MILLION POUNDS of garbage per week and over FOURTEEN BILLION POUNDS (14,256,000,000) of garbage per year! I am NOT a crazy environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but, I'm sorry, but that's just-about criminal. That is a disgusting amount of trash moved by the USPS for no reason whatsoever. The problem doesn't end there. Besides environmental impact, think of all the fuel and waste by-products consumed by moving and having to deal with fourteen billion pounds of trash. Think of the USPS delivery pipeline, trucks, vans, airplanes and unnecessary people. Think of the additional capacity requirement in local trash pickup trucks and the fuel they burn. And think of the excess power, people, area and fuel required to process and recycle this trash. Based just on the the above I'd say that, yes, the USPS either needs to go away or seriously shrink down and stop this nonsense.
- therobot24 14y agoUSPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana where it would be infeasible for them to put it on their route. While USPS guarantees mail to small, forgotten areas.
- robomartin 14y ago> USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana Who cares? Really. You are talking about keeping alive an organization that is now beyond obsolete just because people choose to live in these places? It's their choice. Their problem. Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way? I don't have any problem with people living in the middle of a desert if they want to. Or 3,000 feet up a mountain in a cabin that is only reachable via helicopter and has no roads in or out. That's fine. As far as I am concerned, you are free to do as you wish and live wherever you want to. That said, it is YOUR responsibility to live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life. If this means that you have to drive twenty miles to pick-up your mail once a week, or pay for a helicopter to deliver mail and supplies, so be it. Your choice. You don't have to live there. Don't make it my responsibility. It isn't.