Forgot your password?

On the end of USPS 1st Class Saturday delivery:

Displaying poll results.
I support the change, strongly
  5867 votes / 24%
I support the change, mildly
  4277 votes / 17%
The USPS is dropping Saturday delivery?
  2571 votes / 10%
I am against the change, mildly
  2593 votes / 10%
I am against the change, strongly
  2446 votes / 10%
I'm going to sell all my USPS stock right now!
  1629 votes / 6%
Pfui! My country's post system does a better job.
  4569 votes / 19%
23952 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On the end of USPS 1st Class Saturday delivery:

Comments Filter:
  • Or at least a decent job. But no Saturday delivery here either.
    • Same here. Frankly, I don't care about Saturday deliveries. Parcel integrity, that's a different story.

      • Re:A better job (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArsonSmith (13997) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @01:27AM (#42848257) Journal

        And I'd rather the oposite. don't bother dropping shit off at my house Mon-Fri I wont be at home. How about just Saturday/Sunday delivery. Cut costs that much more.

  • by longbot (789962) <longbottle@nOsPAm.gmail.com> on Saturday February 09, 2013 @04:48PM (#42845571) Homepage
    If we let the USPS operate as they should (a taxpayer-funded government agency) then they wouldn't have to worry about financial solvency, and we could get mail every day of the week.

    There are plenty of other things we could do, too. Like toss out all those union fucks making $35/hr and hire twice as many people from the welfare pool at a reasonable living wage. They'd have jobs, and we'd cut costs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The big problem isn't really that the USPS isn't government funded, it's that congress requires them to over-fund the pension fund for postal workers. When the postal union agrees with the USPS, you can bet it's true.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09, 2013 @06:45PM (#42846273)
      The ones making $35/hr are not the average USPS workers. You can find some exceptions, sure, but the vast majority are making well below that. The average hourly wage of a mail sorter is about $23, with 80% percent of mail sorters receiving between $12 and $25. Postal clerks about $25/hr, with 80% between $24 and $27. Carriers about $24/hr, with 80% between $19 and $27.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by longbot (789962)
        And the federal minimum wage is still $7.75/hr, last I checked. Why are we paying them so much more than the private sector? They already get cushy benefits!
        • by riverat1 (1048260) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @12:33AM (#42848049)

          Maybe the question should be "Why is the federal minimum wage set so low?" If it had kept up with inflation from when I was a kid (1960's) it would be in the $12-$14/hour range. It's people with good middle class wages like USPS workers who keep the economy healthy because the have money to spend on more than just the bare necessities.

        • by Marillion (33728)
          Because minimum wage isn't a livable wage. There isn't a state in the States where anyone can work 40 hours a week at minimum wage and make enough for Fair Market Rent of a two bedroom apartment.
        • by Cimexus (1355033) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @03:38AM (#42848679)

          You're looking at it the wrong way. It should be "why is the minimum wage so ridiculously low".

          That is less than half of the minimum wage in the country I live in. And almost noone actually gets paid the minimum wage here (government or private sector). No company paying only the minimum wage would be able to attract and retain employees. Even my first ever job when I was a teenager, stacking shelves at a supermarket part time was paying $19/hr (and significantly higher on Sundays/public holidays).

        • by skegg (666571)

          Meanwhile, here in Australia we have 2 federal politicians who each decided that later this year they would leave politics.

          Their pensions will be about $250,000 a year ... for life ... indexed to inflation ... irrespective of any other sources of income. And they're not old at all.
          (Australian dollar ~ US dollar)

          link [michaelsmithnews.com]

        • by QRDeNameland (873957) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @08:05PM (#42854195)

          And the federal minimum wage is still $7.75/hr, last I checked. Why are we paying them so much more than the private sector? They already get cushy benefits!

          I see that this spawned a long thread on the efficacy of the minimum wage, but that covers over the more major flaw in this argument: if you are going to make a comparison in compensation, it should not be against the minimum wage but rather to the typical compensation for the same work in the private sector; that is, FedEx, UPS, etc. To compare to the minimum wage is directly implies that postal work would be a minimum wage job in the private sector, which it is clearly not.

    • by Gr8Apes (679165) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @06:47PM (#42846291)
      If Congress wouldn't interfere with the USPS plan to shut down redundant and unnecessary offices, like two in my city 0.8 miles apart, both with lines and only 2 of 5 windows open that they could merge and have 4 windows open and 1 less manager+, perhaps they wouldn't be in the red. I won't mention there's at least another 5 POs within a 5 mile radius of these two, and most of those are better run and are my preferred goto locations when I need something. The only time I step into "my" PO is when I'm forced to because of a package or delivery problem.
      • by longbot (789962)
        Also very true. We have a similar problem here, with two of them so close together that they're almost in the same zipcode.
    • by Mitreya (579078) <(mitreya) (at) (gmail.com)> on Saturday February 09, 2013 @08:10PM (#42846827)

      If we let the USPS operate as they should (a taxpayer-funded government agency) then they wouldn't have to worry about financial solvency, and we could get mail every day of the week.

      Or if we don't admit that USPS should be a taxpayer funded exercise, let them choose only the cost-efficient routes as other carriers do. You'd get daily delivery in urban centers and once-a-month visit anywhere in the wilderness.

      My understanding is UPS/FedEx already use USPS to execute delivery in "unprofitable" areas, because USPS has to cover them, even if these routes lose money. A business that has to perform unprofitable work is pretty much a government service as far as I am concerned.

      • by wvmarle (1070040) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @10:48AM (#42849941)

        There is more to it, it's not that easy.

        As postal service, they're a common carrier. So that means they're not allowed to look into your parcel or to read your letter, and they're not responsible for the content of the delivery (if a mail man delivers a parcel bomb that kills you the mail man is not responsible for that). They also must accept mail from any postal address, and deliver it to any other postal address, at a fixed cost.

        Urban delivery is highly profitable, cost per letter is far less than what the sender pays. That makes up for the losses of the rural and wilderness addresses.

        Also the postal services are allowed to place mail collection boxes all over the place, giving them a huge competitive advantage over commercial competitors (like FedEx, UPS, etc). In many countries the postal service still has a monopoly on letters - usually defined as postal items less than a certain weight.

        And for those unprofitable areas: the USPS will be happy to take FedEx parcels as well. It's a win for both sides. With all the extra parcels it may even become profitable overall, as there is now only one person running that route, instead of two persons, saving a lot on salary and vehicle costs and so.

    • by nbauman (624611) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @08:24PM (#42846907) Homepage Journal

      Are you one of the people who makes more than $35 an hour, and is resentful of somebody else making as much as you?

      Or are you one of the people who makes less than $35 an hour, and is jealous of somebody else making more than you?

      • by longbot (789962)
        I'm a person who's done identical work for less pay, and not felt shortchanged because there's nothing about the work itself that warrants paying that kind of money. It's not hazardous, dangerous, or likely to cripple you.
        • by nbauman (624611) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @10:54PM (#42847633) Homepage Journal

          As somebody else said, very few people in the post office make $35 an hour.

          I think everybody should make at least $25 an hour. Anything less and they're not making enough to support themselves in American society, and the rest of us -- government -- are going to have to make up the difference between what their employer is paying them and what they need to survive.

          Minimum wage jobs don't pay enough for people to buy health insurance, so when they get sick, they go to the public hospitals and the rest of us have to pay for it.

          If you can't pay your employees $25 an hour, you're an inefficient enterprise and you should go broke and be replaced by somebody who can.

    • by ryanov (193048)

      Maybe $35/hr is a ridiculously high wage where you live or something?

    • by Maxmin (921568) on Monday February 11, 2013 @10:29PM (#42867767)

      USPS was entirely self-sufficient on postage fees alone, with surplus revenues, up until Congress passed legislation that mandated USPS pay forward *75 years* of retiree health benefits within *ten years*. No other organization, business or government, has such a mandate.

      "Taxpayer-funded" kicked in after that point, as you'd expect it would.

      Wealthy congresscritters want to kill off USPS so their cronies in the private sector will benefit, IMO.

      http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/20/how-congress-is-killing-the-post-office/ [reuters.com]
      http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/nov/11/sanford-bishop/bishop-signs-letter-saying-post-office-faces-big-p/ [politifact.com]

  • by DirePickle (796986) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @04:54PM (#42845607)
    I wonder if anyone means this for real. I don't know much about other countries' postal services, but I find the USPS to be pretty damn impressive. Less than $0.50 to send a physical object more than two thousand miles in two days. And I know it happens, but I've personally never had anything get lost or mangled in the process.
    • by xaxa (988988)

      I wonder if anyone means this for real. I don't know much about other countries' postal services, but I find the USPS to be pretty damn impressive. Less than $0.50 to send a physical object more than two thousand miles in two days. And I know it happens, but I've personally never had anything get lost or mangled in the process.

      That price compares extremely well for the service in Europe. Sending a normal letter from the UK to, say, Austria would get there in the same "2-3 days" as USPS claims, but cost almost $1.40. (That's less than 2000 miles, but comparing strictly on distance doesn't quite work, as the population and economic distribution of the continents is very different. Many European countries offer a next-day service within the country for around $1, for example.)

      • by xaxa (988988)

        Also, having read some other comments, I think the continental postal service is less useful in Europe. We've used electronic money transfers for a long time, and far less companies send letters to personal customers in different countries.

        Most people's bank, credit card company, utility company, job etc -- and acquaintances -- are based in the same country. I think the only organisation that sends me paper letters from abroad is the FSF Europe (once a year).

    • by longbot (789962)
      They used to have a spotless record with me until about four years ago. They've since lost rent checks twice, and a government document with a $1250 check was lost/stolen as well. However, they don't break things into little bits like UPS seems to like doing. I still prefer sending important things by FedEx. They have never lost/broken anything, and I shipped a 50lb laser printer 1200 miles with them for $14. Fully insured, at that.
    • by dryeo (100693)

      Canada, $0.55 to send a physical object 3000+ miles in a couple of days. Costs are on average 30% more in Canada so 55 cents is comparable. Probably roughly the same number of lost and mangled packages as in the US though no Saturday deliveries in a long time. And yes, Canada Post is self funding.

      • by smartin (942)

        As a Canadian that lives in the US, I have to say that one of the few things that impressed me when I moved down here was how much better USPS works than Canada Post. Here is it very common to chuck something in the mail and have it delivered the next morning. That does not happen in Canada from my experience.

        A perfect example is Netflix. I thought that it was a crazy idea until I tried it and found how well it works with one day turnaround. As far as I know, it has not taken off north of the border and the

  • Monopolies are bad, government or otherwise.

    End it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Are you a religious man? Because that's a religious statement.

      What is wrong with the USPS and how would the free market make it better?

      Why did Jefferson push to specifically command congress to create the USPS? (It's in the constitution.) What do you know that the framers didn't?

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        Quite. The Postal Service is one of the few things that the US government is directed to do. Any "literalist" should be all about keeping the USPS around as a communications method of last resort. The people most likely to be such "literalists" seem to be those that are most eager to privatize the postal service or destroy it entirely.

      • What is wrong with the USPS and how would the free market make it better?

        How about the fact that it is $15 Billion [cnn.com] in debt?

        FedEx, for instance, is several billion dollars in the black. The free market has a way of weeding out unsuccessful enterprises. If you can't manage your money, then you go out of business and someone else steps in the fill the void.

        And how is "monopolies are bad" a religious statement? Are you saying you think monopolies are good?

        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09, 2013 @07:13PM (#42846477)

          1) The USPS is NOT a monopoly. You are free to send your mail/packages via FedEx, UPS, DHS, local parcel and gasp e-mail.
          2) FedEx and UPS both rely heavily on the USPS to remain profitable by farming unprofitable packages to the USPS.
          3) The USPS is the only one that has to fund it health care 75 years in advance, this includes all government agencies and FedEx/UPS/DHS...
          4) UPS is unionized and pays as well as, if not better then, the USPS so don't blame unions.
          5) The vast majority of the debt is because of the pre-fund mandate and all of it can be attributed to Congress. If the USPS was allowed to act as an independent agency they would be fine. Redundant post offices not allowed to close, Saturday delivery being required, and the prefund are all problems cause by Congress not the USPS.

          • by geoskd (321194)

            1) The USPS is NOT a monopoly. You are free to send your mail/packages via FedEx, UPS, DHS, local parcel and gasp e-mail.

            The USPS is a monopoly. No other carrier may handle "letters", and only two entities can touch a mailbox, the owner and an authorized representative of the USPS. for everyone else there's jail time. If that's not a monopoly I don't know what is.

            -=Geoskd

        • by nbauman (624611)

          "Monopolies are bad" is a religious statement because it isn't based on supporting evidence.

          All you do is say, "Last time I went to the post office the line was too long," or "they lost my letter once."

          • by geoskd (321194)

            "Monopolies are bad" is a religious statement because it isn't based on supporting evidence.

            "Monopolies are bad" is based on 300+ years of experience. The problem is so prevalent that The Sherman Anti Trust Act [wikipedia.org] has been used to try and combat it for almost a century now.

            -=Geoskd

      • by pla (258480)
        What is wrong with the USPS

        1) My tax dollars subsidize it.
        2) I get very nearly zero use out of it.
        3) The only ones who do use it, use it to send me entire books of junkmail for far less than I can send a postcard to Grandma.
        4) For actual packages, private shippers do it better and cheaper.

        Admittedly, for postcards and #10 envelopes, you can't beat the price of the USPS - But then again, apparently they can't afford to send those for what they charge, either, sooo...


        Why did Jefferson push to speci
        • by Mitreya (579078) <(mitreya) (at) (gmail.com)> on Saturday February 09, 2013 @08:31PM (#42846951)

          What is wrong with the USPS

          1) My tax dollars subsidize it.

          Not in the last 30 years they haven't. Unless you were a taxpayer in the 70s, your tax dollars _never_ subsidized USPS.
          Perhaps they should be subsidized with tax dollars, but they certainly are not at the moment.
          They are being forced into keeping the prices down and handling the non-profitable routes though. All the responsibility and none of the benefits, really.

          The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters.

          • by pla (258480)
            Not in the last 30 years they haven't.

            So what do you call 3.4 billion a year for the next ten years, as approved in 2012 when the postmaster general asked to close branches and congress instead laughed at him and whipped out the checkbook?


            They are being forced into keeping the prices down and handling the non-profitable routes though. All the responsibility and none of the benefits, really.

            Now, in that regard, I consider you the single most insightful response to me so far. Cut the congressional r
            • > So what do you call 3.4 billion a year for the next ten years, as approved in 2012 when the postmaster general asked to close branches and congress instead laughed at him and whipped out the checkbook?

              I call that fair. If congress is going to insist on the USPS providing unprofitable services they should finance it. If people don't like the results they should stop whining when the USPS closes a post office in their area.

              The USPS gets a lot of interference from Congress. If Congress were to leave them

          • by geoskd (321194) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @09:45PM (#42847345)

            Not in the last 30 years they haven't. Unless you were a taxpayer in the 70s, your tax dollars _never_ subsidized USPS.

            You should really know something before you make statements like that. According to the USPS annual budget report, the USPS has basically survived by borrowing close to $15 Billion from the Fed in interest free loans. About 2/3 of that debt is related to the pension costs, but the rest is simply operating losses. If the USPS goes under before paying it back, then yes, the taxpayers have to foot the bill for the entire amount. Even if the USPS does pay it back, we are still talking about interest free loans. Where do I go to get a 0% interest loan when I need one?

            If you include a normal interest rate for a business loan, say, 5%, then you can tack an additional $4 Billion onto that bill. So in a very real sense we are subsidizing the USPS, and it becomes even worse if the USPS tanks before paying us. The only difference between the USPS failing and any other business at that point is that the union members pensions are largely funded so that they don't take it in the shorts as bad as the auto workers did...

            -=Geoskd

    • by SQLGuru (980662)

      It's not a monopoly.......you can pay FedEx or UPS or whoever else to deliver your items. Feel free to use them instead.

    • UPS, FedEx or any other shipper is free right now to compete with USPS. The problem is they can't - the differences in scale are enormous.

      • by compro01 (777531)

        But UPS and Fedex have to put their packages by the door, rather than in the mailbox! It's completely different!!!

        • by mschuyler (197441)

          If the package does not fit in the mailbox, USPS puts it by the door. Exactly the same as FedEx and UPS.

    • by nbauman (624611)

      Then you'll be down to 2 monopolies -- UPS and Fedex.

  • by cyberstealth1024 (860459) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @05:18PM (#42845757)

    Instead of stopping Saturday mail....
    Instead of increasing the cost of a stamp (1st class mail)....

    How about they increase the cost of bulk mail? Bulk mail makes up 90% of my snail-mail inbox. If nothing else, that means that I'd have less snail-mail spam. i.e. 2 birds, 1 stone.

    • I assume the USPS is setting the price point for junk mail optimally for maximum profit already. If they raise it, they'll end up delivering less mail, but reduce their profit even further. This would cause more problems for them than it solves.

  • by sillivalley (411349) <[ten.tsacmoc] [ta] [yellavillis]> on Saturday February 09, 2013 @05:33PM (#42845841)
    SO they're proposing to take all the sh*t they'd normally deliver on Saturday, remove the first-class stuff, and deliver the rest? This is more efficient and will save money?
    Sounds like a stalking horse to me, to make their plight more visible, hamstrung between unions on one side and politicians on the other, and not allowed to make business decisions on their own.
  • I get my many prescription medications from the VA, by mail. There's not much I can do about not being able to get them on Sundays or Federal Holidays, but cutting out Saturday delivery is just another day I can't get the medicine I need to stay alive and (reasonably) healthy. Yes, I try to get it ordered soon enough that it comes before I run out, but having to work around no weekend delivery at all just makes it harder. Right now, I'm very very happy that they use UPS instead of USPS for my insulin.
    • by csirac (574795)
      Wait. You get insulin shipped to your door? How is it packaged? I sometimes have trouble with heat-damaged insulin at the best of times. Just in December I was over in Western Australia, I left my backpack in an unairconditioned building which coincided with the onset of a nasty cold. It took a few (big) ineffective doses and a fresh cartridge to realize that my staggeringly high BSLs were due to heat-damaged insulin, rather than the virus... so I'm curious how they package insulin for mailing.
  • In the past few years the service I receive from USPS has gone from flawless to awful. I now end up with other peoples mail in my box frequently and packages delivered to the neighborhood lockbox end up having the key delivered to the wrong mailbox. Last month the check I mailed for my mortgage payment never made it to the processing company so now I pay extra for the privilege of paying by phone rather than risk damaged credit due to postal service incompetence. If I did my job half as badly I would at lea
    • have you complained to your local postmaster? often the misdelivered items are because the person doing your route sucks or they just don't have a regular postman assigned. I went through a period like this where we lost a really good one, got the round robin thing for about a year and now we have a regular guy again who does a very good job.

  • Congress hates us (Score:5, Informative)

    by StanramonFlash (1672898) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @08:25PM (#42846915)
    Congress is trying to break the Postal union. They're actually quite solvent right now and in the black. The problem it would seem is that Congress is insisting the USPS have enough money on hand? to pay for 15 years worth of pensions. I couldn't find supporting evidence of this but this opinion piece in Reuters seems to support this conclusion. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/20/how-congress-is-killing-the-post-office/ [reuters.com]
  • I think it's a really smart move, and I don't see any issue with cutting normal deliveries to 3 days a week, say Monday/Wednesday/Friday. They could still deliver higher priority mail and packages on the other days, but honestly, does it really matter if you get a bill 1 day later? If it's time critical, I think most people are going to use e-mail anyway, and if it's something that actually needs physical delivery in a hurry, why not charge a bit more for priority delivery.

    • The USPS is already almost irrelevant right now. All my bills are electronic, with the exception of medical stuff... and even they are starting to finally come around. My family is all on email, even my 75 year old mom. So really, all I get in the mail is postal spam (a LOT of it) and Christmas cards. I haven't gotten an honest-to-goodness letter in a decade.

      I feel bad for the people who are going to be put out of work; but I don't think maintaining a postal service makes a whole lot of sense anymore. Let i

      • by g1powermac (812562) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @10:00PM (#42847409)
        As a postal employee, I might be a bit bias. . .But, here's the thing, the USPS has a lot more going for it than just first class mail. That 'postal spam' is an advertising route that I doubt will disappear any time in the near future. The standard mail volume has remained steady despite the advent of the internet and the onslaught of email spam. If businesses are willing the spend money on postage, we're willing to ship it. Second, the post office will deliver to areas that neither Fedex nor UPS wants to go without charging an extra arm for. So, this means package volume at the post office has gone considerably up. Also, as a part time eBay seller, the post office has considerably better rates on shipping lighter weight (under 5 pounds) packages than either of the other two carriers.

        So this is how it stands right now: first class volume, way down; standard mail, about the same; package volume, way up. So, the relevancy of the post office is heading towards more of package delivery versus letter delivery. I think if the post office didn't have to deal with congress setting the unbelievably stupid pre-funding all pensions for the foreseeable future rule, we'd actually be in halfway decent shape. And really, if they didn't have to deal with congress at all, I think more advanced things could be done. Like maybe branching out into something like what Fedex-Kinkos has done. It would bring more services to each post office then just shipping.
  • by g1powermac (812562) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @09:38PM (#42847315)
    Though the reason is because I'm also a postal employee, and one that would be directly affected by this. However, I also have an inside view of how things work at the post office, and I truly don't see how they're going to save much money doing this. There's quite a few reasons for this. One, all the letter and flat (magazines and catalogs) volume is just going to be shifted to the rest of the week. So, whatever time each route is evaluated at (and hence what we're paid for) will go up. So, instead of 8 hours of route time for 6 days, it'll be maybe 8.5 hours for 5 days. And if it goes close to or over overtime limits, the route will have to be split, creating more routes and hence, more employees needed. Second, since they're still planning to do package delivery and keep the offices open on Saturday, that means they still need almost the full complement of support staff at each office. This includes clerks, maintenance, and management. Might need fewer clerks in the early morning for processing from dispatch, but that's about it. They're also still going to need dispatch trucks coming to and from the post office to the distribution center to drop off and pick up parcels and express mail.

    So, the only area they save money is by extensively cutting hours to employees like me. I'm a RCA (rural carrier associate), which means I fill in for the regular rural carrier. I run Saturdays and any days the regular takes off. So, under the new system, they wouldn't need the usual one RCA per route like it is now. With just package runs on Saturdays, one person could handle multiple routes worth of packages, or instead of working a full day, each RCA now works just maybe a half day on Saturday. No one knows just yet how the upper management is going to implement this. Interestingly enough, local management and carriers heard the news after it hit the national news. The guys in Washington are not giving us any heads up on this causing a lot of outrage among the employees.
  • Junk mail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ChrisMaple (607946) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @10:22PM (#42847513)
    USPS loses money on junk mail, and Congress won't let them raise the price to cover expenses (lobbyist pressure). Prices should rise to at least cover expenses. I think residential delivery should be ended Tuesday and Thursday in preference to Saturday: no good reason to have no delivery 2 days in a row.
  • by uvajed_ekil (914487) on Saturday February 09, 2013 @10:24PM (#42847521)
    Stopping Saturday deliveries is like putting a band-aid on a broken leg and isn't going to make the USPS healthy. This is not the answer, though I'm not sure there is a good one. You could raise rates even more (as if it the price to send a small package or even a letter isn't high enough already), but then you'd run the risk of losing even more customers for good, which has already been a problem. Having a local post office seems like a basic right to me and I'm strongly against closing more offices than have already been closed, so that isn't it either. Cutting employees and salaries much is pretty much off the table, since those folks work hard enough as it stands. There may be more room to get more efficient with vehicle costs (initial cost, maintenance, fuel) and building utilities, but the big picture looks pretty bad. Soo...

    Seriously, what can they do? Dedicated buses/shuttles and push-carts for carriers on walking routes, rather than individual vehicles? Some of those tiny electric vehicles that are barely road-worthy for non-rural routes? More contracting with DHL, UPS and other companies, for USPS to provide last mile service or outsource long distance shipments? Something drastic, like neighborhood mail box banks, like you see in apartment complexes?
  • netflix (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xlsior (524145) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @05:01AM (#42848927) Homepage
    For the most part I wouldn't care about lack of Saturday delivery, except for Netflix.

    ...Especially since USPS also announced they are intending to close our local mail sorting center, meaning that instead of overnight delivery everything will be two day minimum. That means USPS reduces the number of Netflix DVD's I could receive in a month by more than 50%.

    Of course, I'm sure that Netflix won't mind: longer mail transit times means that high usage customers may now be pushed into profitability, or get ticked off and leave altogether also saving them money.
  • by hessian (467078) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @09:01AM (#42849487) Homepage Journal

    Whenever the USPS has money, the Congress puts more rules on it. The most recent was the rule about having to pay forward its health care expenses:

    http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20121001/DEPARTMENTS02/310010002/USPS-again-defaults-health-care-payment [federaltimes.com]

    The pensions, union rules and other government regulations are strangling this once-great postal service, and it can't keep up. Removing these rules would allow it to be competitive again.

  • Outraged! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yayoubetcha (893774) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @06:49PM (#42853599)

    When I sent a birthday card to my brother in Hawaii from New York, it cost an outrageous $0.46! I mean, a guy stopped by my house. He picked up my outgoing mail. He drove back to the office. They sorted it. Put it on a plane. Got it to Hawaii. Then a puddle jumper to Maui. Then sorted again. Put it on a jeep. Drove it to the other end of the island. Then delivered it to the door. Then the new tenant wrote "no longer at this address: please forward". Then a guy picked it up..... \

    The delivery ended up in Lodi, CA. My brother sent me an email "thank you", and gave me his new address.

    I mean, seriously? It is outrageous to me that that level of service should cost 46 cents! Should be no more than a quarter.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

 



Forgot your password?
Working...