Going a little less "Postal"
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2009-06-17 2:53 PM |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: Going a little less "Postal" In this time of budget cutbacks and attempts (at least by some) to reduce spending, one of the ideas being discussed is cutting back on postal service. I'll make no attempt to hide the fact that I'm all for this. Do we really need mail delivered six times a week? I know in my business, if it's important, it's got to be sent overnight. If it's not important, it can certainly wait an extra day or two for delivery. And in my personal life, where all I seem to get in the mail is a load of junk I don't want anyway, it can definitely wait. Heck, all my bills are set up to be paid via auto-debit. The only things I now get in the mail that I actually want are a few magazines and my Netflix DVD's. IMO, besides standard mail service, the premium services currently offered by the USPS (Priority Mail, etc.) are simply redundant to what private business such as FedEx, UPS and others are doing a better job of providing anyway. And I'm not necessarily proposing an end to the "behind-the-scenes" work of the Postal Service in actually moving the mail to where it needs to go, but simply reducing the daily delivery of it. So I put it to you, CoJ... if we as taxpayers could save millions of dollars by reducing standard mail delivery to, say, 3 or 4 times a week, could you live with that? |
|
2009-06-17 2:59 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Elite 3022 Preferably on my bike somewhere | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" scoobysdad - 2009-06-17 3:53 PM In this time of budget cutbacks and attempts (at least by some) to reduce spending, one of the ideas being discussed is cutting back on postal service. I'll make no attempt to hide the fact that I'm all for this. Do we really need mail delivered six times a week? I know in my business, if it's important, it's got to be sent overnight. If it's not important, it can certainly wait an extra day or two for delivery. And in my personal life, where all I seem to get in the mail is a load of junk I don't want anyway, it can definitely wait. Heck, all my bills are set up to be paid via auto-debit. The only things I now get in the mail that I actually want are a few magazines and my Netflix DVD's. IMO, besides standard mail service, the premium services currently offered by the USPS (Priority Mail, etc.) are simply redundant to what private business such as FedEx, UPS and others are doing a better job of providing anyway. And I'm not necessarily proposing an end to the "behind-the-scenes" work of the Postal Service in actually moving the mail to where it needs to go, but simply reducing the daily delivery of it. So I put it to you, CoJ... if we as taxpayers could save millions of dollars by reducing standard mail delivery to, say, 3 or 4 times a week, could you live with that? I don't use it, so I could lose it. However, I wonder what small business thinks of this - people who rely on it for their business. |
2009-06-17 3:02 PM in reply to: #2224999 |
Champion 10018 , Minnesota | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" I'd be thrilled. It's all junk anyway, it would save the time I spend at the recycling bin. |
2009-06-17 3:07 PM in reply to: #2224999 |
Pro 4612 MA | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" D.Z. - 2009-06-17 3:59 PM scoobysdad - 2009-06-17 3:53 PM In this time of budget cutbacks and attempts (at least by some) to reduce spending, one of the ideas being discussed is cutting back on postal service. I'll make no attempt to hide the fact that I'm all for this. Do we really need mail delivered six times a week? I know in my business, if it's important, it's got to be sent overnight. If it's not important, it can certainly wait an extra day or two for delivery. And in my personal life, where all I seem to get in the mail is a load of junk I don't want anyway, it can definitely wait. Heck, all my bills are set up to be paid via auto-debit. The only things I now get in the mail that I actually want are a few magazines and my Netflix DVD's. IMO, besides standard mail service, the premium services currently offered by the USPS (Priority Mail, etc.) are simply redundant to what private business such as FedEx, UPS and others are doing a better job of providing anyway. And I'm not necessarily proposing an end to the "behind-the-scenes" work of the Postal Service in actually moving the mail to where it needs to go, but simply reducing the daily delivery of it. So I put it to you, CoJ... if we as taxpayers could save millions of dollars by reducing standard mail delivery to, say, 3 or 4 times a week, could you live with that? I don't use it, so I could lose it. However, I wonder what small business thinks of this - people who rely on it for their business. Let's say cut down on domastic deliveries. I agree - I can survive with once or twice a week of mail deliveries. Not sure if the USPS employees would like the idea though. |
2009-06-17 3:08 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Alpharetta, Georgia | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" I could totally live with it. Like you, I've opted to pay all my bills auto-online and even opted OUT of receiving paper bills in the mail when it is an option (wish more would give this option!). The only important things I get in the mail are deliveries of things purchased online, or something for legal purposes like my car registration sticker once a year. |
2009-06-17 3:09 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Champion 4942 Richmond, VA | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" In the world of patent law and engaging with the U.S. Patent Office, everything right now is based on "mailing dates." Granted, there is a big push for things to be filed electronically, but sometimes one or two days make an important difference and because the Patent Office mails everything - reducing the number of delivery days could be determintal. With that being said - if they set up a secure electroinc delivery system for official Patent Office communications, no issues on my end. |
|
2009-06-17 4:06 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" I am not sure how accurate it is but I read earlier this year that right now only government subsidies and Junk mail are keeping the post office affloat. That is one reason they refuse to hamper junk mailing as long as the mailing company complies to the rules (like removing people from lists etc...) With the exception of my Netflix I would be fine with getting mail once or twice a week. The only trouble I can see with this is for certain businesses/organizations that rely on it heavily for legal and or actual mailing use and the loss of jobs from cutting back on the employees that would have to happen. |
2009-06-17 4:21 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Master 2477 Oceanside, California | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" Reminds me of how in CA, Gov. Schwarzeneggar "threatened" to shut down state government for one day a week. Aside from the public employee unions, no one really seemed to care. To make discussion on talk radio, they had to debate - not if people cared - but if they would even notice. |
2009-06-17 4:43 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" Sure, I could live with 3 or 4 days a week, no problems, 6 days is a luxury that no other nation enjoys. I could also live with anyone sending bulk mail paying the going rate. It completely tugs my goat that if I send a letter, it's $0.43, or whatever the going rate is. And I get an ad from the pizza joint or whomever, that mail cost them less than HALF that per piece, sometimes down to 25% of that. Bulk rate. I'd eliminate that in a heartbeat. Funny part is, I interviewed (a year ago) for the CIO job at the USPS, and somehow wasn't selected. Wonder why? |
2009-06-17 5:05 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Pro 4277 Parker, CO | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" I think I mentioned this not long ago in another post but I'll mention it again; USPS does not receive any taxpayer funds. They are required to fund their own operations. However, have not done a very good job of that over the last couple years and it's only getting worse. That being said, I would have no problem going to few delivery days and this has been discussed with the USPS officials. But congress likes to stick their noses into USPS operation and won't have any of it! I'd be in support of a no junk mail list, similar to the no-call list. But that would kill USPS sooner than if they try to suvive on deliving junk mail. My bigger issue is at a time when everyone is on the green movement...why are we still producing so much junk mail? It's not in any way environmentally friendly... |
2009-06-17 6:01 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Pro 4189 Pittsburgh, my heart is in Glasgow | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" Sure, I could live with 3 or 4 days a week, no problems, 6 days is a luxury that no other nation enjoys. Not entirely true, the UK gets post 6 days a week. Having worked for USPS, I have to say that you'd be shocked at how many packages get from point A to point B. I've processed everything from magazines to a garbage can to a chrome Ford bumper (posted in STAMPS none the less). I think that we could cut down on DELIVERY to 5 days, but processing would absolutely have to continue 7 days a week, or your mail would be severely delayed. Mail processing is a 24hr a day operation, and if something goes offline, or for whatever reason goes wrong, the backup is cleared through overtime. |
|
2009-06-17 6:41 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Veteran 840 | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" Go to 5 days a week (drop saturday) and raise junk mail rates. I could stand to see few catalogs and other junk mail. Heck, make them pay full rate as far as I am concerned. |
2009-06-17 6:46 PM in reply to: #2225287 |
Pro 4612 MA | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" rkreuser - 2009-06-17 5:43 PM Sure, I could live with 3 or 4 days a week, no problems, 6 days is a luxury that no other nation enjoys. I could also live with anyone sending bulk mail paying the going rate. It completely tugs my goat that if I send a letter, it's $0.43, or whatever the going rate is. And I get an ad from the pizza joint or whomever, that mail cost them less than HALF that per piece, sometimes down to 25% of that. Bulk rate. I'd eliminate that in a heartbeat. Funny part is, I interviewed (a year ago) for the CIO job at the USPS, and somehow wasn't selected. Wonder why? Hong Kong has mail delivered 6 days a week. |
2009-06-17 6:47 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" scoobysdad - 2009-06-17 3:53 PM if we as taxpayers could save millions of dollars by reducing standard mail delivery to, say, 3 or 4 times a week, could you live with that? Um, sure, but since the US Postal Service isn't funded by taxpayer dollars, the question seems moot. |
2009-06-17 6:51 PM in reply to: #2225446 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" Indiana_Geoff - 2009-06-17 6:41 PM Go to 5 days a week (drop saturday) and raise junk mail rates. I could stand to see few catalogs and other junk mail. Heck, make them pay full rate as far as I am concerned. Why should a mailing house pay more for postage. Discount rates are given to bulk mailers because there is zero processing for the post office. I haven't done the figures but I bet the post office would lose money if they got rid of bulk mail. Edited by Jackemy 2009-06-17 6:52 PM |
2009-06-17 7:02 PM in reply to: #2225287 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" rkreuser - 2009-06-17 5:43 PM 6 days is a luxury that no other nation enjoys. phoenixazul - 2009-06-17 7:01 PM Not entirely true, the UK gets post 6 days a week. D.K. - 2009-06-17 7:46 PM Hong Kong has mail delivered 6 days a week. rkreuser - 2009-06-17 5:43 PM Funny part is, I interviewed (a year ago) for the CIO job at the USPS, and somehow wasn't selected. Wonder why? Because they asked you how many other countries in the world get mail 6 days a week? :P |
|
2009-06-17 8:32 PM in reply to: #2225455 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" newleaf - 2009-06-17 6:47 PM scoobysdad - 2009-06-17 3:53 PM if we as taxpayers could save millions of dollars by reducing standard mail delivery to, say, 3 or 4 times a week, could you live with that? Um, sure, but since the US Postal Service isn't funded by taxpayer dollars, the question seems moot. Check again. |
2009-06-17 8:42 PM in reply to: #2225634 |
Veteran 334 | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" The USPS website says that it doesn't get any tax dollars....click here. |
2009-06-17 8:44 PM in reply to: #2224980 |
Elite 3972 Reno | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" I hate junk mail - goes right in the trash. I don't open circulars or coupon packets or anything. How do I get off these lists? So - netflix is the only reason anyone likes the mail man (or woman) anymore? I would be happy with fewer days of delivery. |
2009-06-17 9:27 PM in reply to: #2225660 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" That is completely untrue. The Postal System has been losing billions for years. They also received a bailout after 9/11. Where do you think money comes from/ will come from again? http://www.thedailycrux.com/content/1331/Bailout |
2009-06-18 1:53 AM in reply to: #2225486 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" newleaf - 2009-06-17 8:02 PM rkreuser - 2009-06-17 5:43 PM 6 days is a luxury that no other nation enjoys. phoenixazul - 2009-06-17 7:01 PM Not entirely true, the UK gets post 6 days a week. D.K. - 2009-06-17 7:46 PM Hong Kong has mail delivered 6 days a week. rkreuser - 2009-06-17 5:43 PM Funny part is, I interviewed (a year ago) for the CIO job at the USPS, and somehow wasn't selected. Wonder why? Because they asked you how many other countries in the world get mail 6 days a week? :P Um, without getting technical, AFAIK, the US moves all classes of mail daily. Other nations only move certain classes of mail 6 days a week. And actually, I've seen the US cutting back, now that I think about it. In Michigan, in the last 2 years, I'm only seeing bulk rate (e.g., junk) on Saturdays...never any personal or stamped correspondence. N=1 on this one, but the scaling back might already be in process.... |
|
2009-06-18 5:30 AM in reply to: #2225731 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" scoobysdad - 2009-06-17 10:27 PM noony - 2009-06-17 8:42 PM That is completely untrue. The Postal System has been losing billions for years. They also received a bailout after 9/11. Where do you think money comes from/ will come from again? http://www.thedailycrux.com/content/1331/Bailout The USPS website says that it doesn't get any tax dollars....click here. Ah yes, the daily crux, that time-honored... um, what is it? website? newspaper? tabloid? And besides, the article you quoted doesn't say anything about them taking a bailout... here is a quote from your article... "Blair also noted that Congress could consider appropriating money to help the post office. The agency does not receive a taxpayer subsidy for its operations, although Congress does subsidize overseas voting and free mail for the blind." "William Young, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, stressed in his testimony that the agency is not seeking a taxpayer bailout, "but we are here to ask the Congress for help." Although I'm not sure what kind of "help" he is asking for, other than a bailout... but whatever. I'm not going to list all the sites here, but if you google something like "usps taxpayer dollars" and read through some of the links, it seems that the original question in this thread is moot. |
2009-06-18 6:53 AM in reply to: #2224980 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" I have a small business and before a hurricane hit my house and the economy went to hell I was shipping nearly every day. IMO the USPS has been shooting themselves in the foot for a long time. If I had a wholesale order to ship it was WAY cheaper to ship Fed Ex or even UPS rather than USPS. It seemed to me they kept making things harder on companies while continuing to raise the rate. About 5 years ago they came out with a flat rate box which I thought was a great idea. However, the cost of the box to ship priority has gone up from $6.80 to $9.85 in only 3 years. Their service is generally poor. A first class letter from Houston to Michigan takes 4-5 days! I remember years ago, I know it's been a while, but Lance Armstrong raced for USPS and I never understood that. Sponsorship is expensive. They were raising the rates of stamps and yet sponsoring Lance???? That made no sense to me. I am ok with them going to 5 days. The only thing I find odd is last I heard they were going to take away one of the weekdays when it seems taking Saturday would make the most sense. |
2009-06-18 8:51 AM in reply to: #2225917 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" newleaf - 2009-06-18 5:30 AM scoobysdad - 2009-06-17 10:27 PM noony - 2009-06-17 8:42 PM That is completely untrue. The Postal System has been losing billions for years. They also received a bailout after 9/11. Where do you think money comes from/ will come from again? http://www.thedailycrux.com/content/1331/Bailout The USPS website says that it doesn't get any tax dollars....click here. Ah yes, the daily crux, that time-honored... um, what is it? website? newspaper? tabloid? And besides, the article you quoted doesn't say anything about them taking a bailout... here is a quote from your article... "Blair also noted that Congress could consider appropriating money to help the post office. The agency does not receive a taxpayer subsidy for its operations, although Congress does subsidize overseas voting and free mail for the blind." "William Young, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, stressed in his testimony that the agency is not seeking a taxpayer bailout, "but we are here to ask the Congress for help." Although I'm not sure what kind of "help" he is asking for, other than a bailout... but whatever. I'm not going to list all the sites here, but if you google something like "usps taxpayer dollars" and read through some of the links, it seems that the original question in this thread is moot. You can mock the source all you want, but it doesn't change the truth of the content: The USPS has always been subsidized-- perhaps indirectly, but who cares when the money comes from the same place... US? I can Google, too. It took me about 12 seconds to find these tidbits: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg716.cfm At present, with its $1.5 billion in annual taxpayer subsides and its 10 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, the USPS receives considerable financial support from the government. The USPS has two other tight links to the government. One is its open claim on the U.S.Treasury through what are called Transitional Appropriations. These were provided by the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 to smooth the transition from the old Post Office Department to a government corporation. Its other link to government are the Public Service appropriations, last used in 1982, to reimburse the USPS for losses incurred in communities where post offices are not self-sustaining.The USPS also has the privilege of borrowing up to $10 billion from both the Federal Financing Bank (a part of the U.S.Treasury) and theTreasury itself at interest rates well below what its private counterparts pay in the market. One need only refer to the 2005 annual report to get some illustrative numbers. A line item showing as "U.S. government appropriations — received" lists an amount of $503 million. The 2003 annual report shows a similar line item with a similar heading. That line item lists an amount of $762 million. Edited by scoobysdad 2009-06-18 8:52 AM |
2009-06-18 9:22 AM in reply to: #2224980 |
Elite 2768 Raleigh | Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal" I think a lot of people forget that most of the country is actually a rurual area and a large population of that rural area does not have reliable internet service. I would assume the majority of social security checks, food stamps, SSI checks, and disability payments would go thru the mail. I am not sure how that would impact the ederly and the low income in reguards to having bills paid on time or other services being offered if mail was delayed a extra day because of no service.
The state of NC was toying with the idea of going to a 4 day work week for all Govt employees this year until they realized they could not pay their employees less because of employment contracts and then they thought well if we have to pay them, we might as well make em work... |
|