4 ms·

The 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 i

The 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 ago
Do you have any more information about this?
- bradleyland 14y ago
  This 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 ago
  I 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 ago
Relevant? http://www.howwesavedthepostoffice.com/ http://www.howwesavedthepostoffice.com/
jellicle 14y ago
Since 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.
- rohansingh 14y ago
  I really don't understand this sort of thinking. Sure, it's a large union, but if it is providing benefits for employees while enabling an efficient postal system that delivers to everyone — even those who live in places that private services may consider unprofitable to deliver to — then what's the problem?
  - newbie12 14y ago
    UPS and FedEx also have complete nationwide delivery that includes unprofitable places. In fact, both private delivery companies come to my rural doorstep while the USPS won't deliver to my home at all.
    - jellicle 14y ago
      Since the minimum price for a Fedex delivery is around $12, they're not losing money on you, or anywhere else. The USPS, on the other hand, will deliver things to you for 46 cents.
    - Anechoic 14y ago
      In fact, both private delivery companies come to my rural doorstep while the USPS won't deliver to my home at all. Where is this? I ship a lot of packages and have experienced this opposite, I've never seen the situation you describe.
  - jellicle 14y ago
    It's a union with half a million employees. Congressman Issa is a Republican who hates unions. That's all he needs to know. Really, I don't think there's any deeper analysis than that. People really don't understand the ideology level of the typical Republican in Congress. Ideology is first and foremost; good governance is not even a consideration.
- FajitaNachos 14y ago
  The Japanese postal service beats the USPS hands down fwiw.
newbie12 14y ago
Completely wrong. The requirement is to pre-fund their unique retiree health care benefit, not their pensions. (Everyone has to pre-fund pensions.) This special health care benefit was "pay-as-you-go" and has over $40 billion in unfunded liabilities. Without pre-funding, these costs will fall on the taxpayer as USPS goes bust in the next decade or two
- rohansingh 14y ago
  You're correct in that it was healthcare, not pension. No wonder I was having trouble finding articles that I was sure I'd read on this. That said, the requirement, which seems to be that the USPS must fund healthcare benefits 75 years in advance, is still patently ridiculous. It is a manufactured crisis, in part.
  - newbie12 14y ago
    USPS needs to fund the promises it is making to its employees, especially when those promises will eventually cost nearly $50 billion. The retiree health care benefit is unique to postal workers, which is why USPS claims the burden is unique, but that's a pretty dishonest description of the situation.
    - ahi 14y ago
      They are currently prepaying health care benefits for workers who haven't been born yet. It's absurd. Congress went from one extreme to the other.
Shivetya 14y ago
The funding requirements became law in 2006 because the Post Office was not properly funding them and many in Congress didn't want another problem festering. The USPS major expense is its employee's, nearly eighty percent of its operating costs. It has two problems that are both nearly insurmountable. 1) Congress, which likes to prevent the USPS from closing facilities, think of this as being similar to the dance that goes on when closing military bases comes up but with far more points of interest. 2) Unions. Rules prevent the arbiters from even considering the financial health of the USPS when negotiating contracts. Contracts also make it difficult to hire part time workers. On average their benefits are amongst the highest in the Federal workforce.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
powertower 14y ago
This may very well be a way to intentionally hurt or change USPS for the benefit of UPS and FedEx, or some other business interest (via corporate lobbyists). Or is being done for leverage. Because it's the only way this all makes sense. And contrary to popular belief that the people in charge are idiots that lack common sense, there is almost always a much deeper and well-thought-out strategy and story behind these types of situations. On the other hand ... this could be afterall rather simple, and the media is making it out to be something it's not. That happens often too.
- jellicle 14y ago
  I don't believe it's really campaign to help UPS or Fedex, but mostly a campaign to hurt the half million unionized employees of USPS. Congressman Issa is a Republican who has sworn jihad against unions. He hates unions with a passion usually reserved for people who run over your dog. So it's not really that he's a corrupt politician trying to get $$$ for his corporate supporters, it's rather that he's a ideologue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/darrell-issa-labor-website-unions_n_1403090.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/darrell-issa-labor-...

cdcarter 14y ago

Do you have any more information about this?

bradleyland 14y ago
This 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 ago
I 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 ago

Relevant? http://www.howwesavedthepostoffice.com/ http://www.howwesavedthepostoffice.com/

jellicle 14y ago

Since 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.

rohansingh 14y ago
I really don't understand this sort of thinking. Sure, it's a large union, but if it is providing benefits for employees while enabling an efficient postal system that delivers to everyone — even those who live in places that private services may consider unprofitable to deliver to — then what's the problem?
- newbie12 14y ago
  UPS and FedEx also have complete nationwide delivery that includes unprofitable places. In fact, both private delivery companies come to my rural doorstep while the USPS won't deliver to my home at all.
  - jellicle 14y ago
    Since the minimum price for a Fedex delivery is around $12, they're not losing money on you, or anywhere else. The USPS, on the other hand, will deliver things to you for 46 cents.
  - Anechoic 14y ago
    In fact, both private delivery companies come to my rural doorstep while the USPS won't deliver to my home at all. Where is this? I ship a lot of packages and have experienced this opposite, I've never seen the situation you describe.
- jellicle 14y ago
  It's a union with half a million employees. Congressman Issa is a Republican who hates unions. That's all he needs to know. Really, I don't think there's any deeper analysis than that. People really don't understand the ideology level of the typical Republican in Congress. Ideology is first and foremost; good governance is not even a consideration.
FajitaNachos 14y ago
The Japanese postal service beats the USPS hands down fwiw.

newbie12 14y ago

Completely wrong. The requirement is to pre-fund their unique retiree health care benefit, not their pensions. (Everyone has to pre-fund pensions.) This special health care benefit was "pay-as-you-go" and has over $40 billion in unfunded liabilities. Without pre-funding, these costs will fall on the taxpayer as USPS goes bust in the next decade or two

rohansingh 14y ago
You're correct in that it was healthcare, not pension. No wonder I was having trouble finding articles that I was sure I'd read on this. That said, the requirement, which seems to be that the USPS must fund healthcare benefits 75 years in advance, is still patently ridiculous. It is a manufactured crisis, in part.
- newbie12 14y ago
  USPS needs to fund the promises it is making to its employees, especially when those promises will eventually cost nearly $50 billion. The retiree health care benefit is unique to postal workers, which is why USPS claims the burden is unique, but that's a pretty dishonest description of the situation.
  - ahi 14y ago
    They are currently prepaying health care benefits for workers who haven't been born yet. It's absurd. Congress went from one extreme to the other.

Shivetya 14y ago

The funding requirements became law in 2006 because the Post Office was not properly funding them and many in Congress didn't want another problem festering. The USPS major expense is its employee's, nearly eighty percent of its operating costs. It has two problems that are both nearly insurmountable. 1) Congress, which likes to prevent the USPS from closing facilities, think of this as being similar to the dance that goes on when closing military bases comes up but with far more points of interest. 2) Unions. Rules prevent the arbiters from even considering the financial health of the USPS when negotiating contracts. Contracts also make it difficult to hire part time workers. On average their benefits are amongst the highest in the Federal workforce.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

powertower 14y ago

This may very well be a way to intentionally hurt or change USPS for the benefit of UPS and FedEx, or some other business interest (via corporate lobbyists). Or is being done for leverage. Because it's the only way this all makes sense. And contrary to popular belief that the people in charge are idiots that lack common sense, there is almost always a much deeper and well-thought-out strategy and story behind these types of situations. On the other hand ... this could be afterall rather simple, and the media is making it out to be something it's not. That happens often too.

jellicle 14y ago
I don't believe it's really campaign to help UPS or Fedex, but mostly a campaign to hurt the half million unionized employees of USPS. Congressman Issa is a Republican who has sworn jihad against unions. He hates unions with a passion usually reserved for people who run over your dog. So it's not really that he's a corrupt politician trying to get $$$ for his corporate supporters, it's rather that he's a ideologue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/darrell-issa-labor-website-unions_n_1403090.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/darrell-issa-labor-...