Post Office & Saturday Delivery

[TromboneAl]

The post office is talking about eliminating Saturday delivery to save money.

There's something that's obvious to me, let me know if I am the only one to think this:

Wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate, say, Wednesday delivery? Then there wouldn't be two days in a row when things aren't delivered -- that would cause less of a disruption. I realize that the mail carriers would rather have two days off, but besides that...

And, BTW, it wouldn't be a good idea to complain about this policy to the post office, if you know what I mean.

 

[REWahoo]

Wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate, say, Wednesday delivery? Then there wouldn't be two days in a row when things aren't delivered -- that would cause less of a disruption. I realize that the mail carriers would rather have two days off, but besides that...

Although this does seem to make sense, many 5-day a week businesses would likely oppose it as it would disrupt "snail mail" inflow and shipping schedules. I also suspect there would be very strong opposition of this plan by the APWU.

 

[Nords]

Wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate, say, Wednesday delivery?

Although this does seem to make sense, many 5-day a week businesses would likely oppose it as it would disrupt "snail mail" inflow and shipping schedules.

I don't think it matters which day goes first-- in 10 years they'll probably both be gone.

I wonder what would happen if the USPS raised bulk-mail rates by 50%. I don't see any discernible effect on my life!

 

[KB]

I seem to only get junk mail on Tuesdays, so missing one day a week wouldn't really have an impact on me. They would probably need less carriers, but more sorters to get all the mail out in 5 days.

 

[FinanceDude]

It won't faze me a bit..........

 

[RonBoyd]

This is one of those "doomed to failure" experiments -- "downsizing" to success rarely succeeds.

What the USPS needs is change. For the past five to ten years, I have used the USPS less often than in the past. In fact, I go through the mental exercise of considering all other options before selecting them. (I even select a much less desirable option if visiting an USPS station is called for.)

There, of course, are some things that the USPS does better than UPS or Fed Ex and that is what they should concentrate on. For instance, the ability to print shipping labels on Priority mail and have them pick up the package is one thing on the plus side. (This is also true with other postage-paid mailings that can be place in your mailbox.)

Of course, by the time those Weasels on Capital Hill finish the job of running interference, most people, like myself, will have completely given up.

(I should add that I ship/mail enough that I have an account with both UPS and Fed Ex.))

 

[freebird5825]

My snail mail volume is so low out here in the boonies, I'd be happy with every other day or even every 3rd day. All I get is junk mail and a very occasional retail shipment vis USPS.
I do most of my bill paying online except for 5 paper bills per year (water, school/county taxes, dog licenses, trash removal, medical copays).
I wonder if the USPS will offer a daily delivery opt-out program ?

 

[ziggy29]

There's something that's obvious to me, let me know if I am the only one to think this:

Wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate, say, Wednesday delivery? Then there wouldn't be two days in a row when things aren't delivered -- that would cause less of a disruption. I realize that the mail carriers would rather have two days off, but besides that...

It makes sense for the consumer of their services, yes, but I suspect their employees are putting pressure on them so all the mail carriers get full two-day weekends instead of two random single days off during the week.

 

[Westernskies]

It makes sense for the consumer of their services, yes, but I suspect their employees are putting pressure on them so all the mail carriers get full two-day weekends instead of two random single days off during the week.

So, treat it like a real business, rotate shifts to provide seamless, uninterrupted coverage to their customers, and still give the employees two days in a row off- just not the same two days every week. If the Post Office employees don't like the working conditions, they can take their skills into the private sector and find something they do like. This is a good opportunity to remind these people that they are working for us, not the other way around...and I'm getting tired of subsidizing yet another bloated government program that puts their bureaucracy first...

 

[ksr]

Wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate, say, Wednesday delivery? Then there wouldn't be two days in a row when things aren't delivered -- that would cause less of a disruption.

Yes, I would certainly prefer this! I realize there are reasons why they want to make it Saturday, but I sure hate the thought of going 2 consecutive days without mail delivery. Ever since I was a kid, I've been a "mail junkie". I still run out to the mailbox daily just to see what might be there.

 

[eridanus]

This is a good opportunity to remind these people that they are working for us, not the other way around...and I'm getting tired of subsidizing yet another bloated government program that puts their bureaucracy first...

There are no subsidies for this government program.

 

[Westernskies]

There are no subsidies for this government program.

Our tax dollars are subsidizing their losses.

 

[eridanus]

Our tax dollars are subsidizing their losses.

The USPS hasn't received taxpayer money for some time now. They operate like a business, albeit one with a BOD of 535.

 

[Alan]

The USPS hasn't received taxpayer money for some time now. They operate like a business, albeit one with a BOD of 535.

I agree, it has been over 20 years since they received any tax payer money.

 

[Texas Proud]

Some points on all the posts...

I don't care which day they eliminate... I don't check my mail every day now anyhow. I can see for businesses that Sat is the best day to get rid of as most businesses are closed then if they are closed.

Another saving can be had if they changed some of the deliver options. At my mothers old house, the mailbox is right next to her door... so they have to walk the blocks. At my house, we have a mailbox next to the street so they get to drive. At one of my sister's house, they have a common mail box for a block, so 20 or so houses all pick up their mail at the same place... like you did when you lived in an apartment.

I would hate to give up my mailbox at the street, but I can see that being taken away to save money and could live with the change.

They also need to close down a LOT of post offices. I was surprised when my sister told me about one that is in a card shop around the corner. It was there when nothing was out here a LONG time ago. We now have a nice building 1/2 mile down the road with all the 'stuff'. But that small one is still open and still staffed for some reason. The news said this is the same all over the place. If a post office is not cost effective, close it down.

HEY>>> why not cut the wage!!! It is not a high skill job. They could save a lot of money by just paying a true market rate... but that will not happen in my lifetime... but it should.

Finally, raising bulk by 50% might be good... but also could be bad... I think they should do a test and see how much volume drops compared to the income...

 

[W2R]

I wonder if the USPS will offer a daily delivery opt-out program ?

I'd sign up for it in a heartbeat! Frank (sitting here by me) says he would, too.

 

[eridanus]

They also need to close down a LOT of post offices.

The USPS has tried to cut the number of (mostly rural) post offices but they're hamstrung by the Postal Regulatory Commission and their BOD. They've also tried to eliminate Saturday delivery before but, again, they ran into opposition.

They're probably the only Constitutionally mandated government agency that has to turn a profit, and that's tough when anything they do, such as a stamp rate increase, has to be approved by bureaucrats that are balancing the USPS mandate and profits.

For example, Forever Stamps? What business would issue such money-losing products?!? The USPS asked for a 3 cent increase and the PRC told them to issue Forever Stamps and take a 2 cent increase instead.

 

[FinanceDude]

I agree, it has been over 20 years since they received any tax payer money.

Maybe not, but they are basically a quasi govt organization that enjoys a monopoly and can raise their revenue whenever they want, without having to deal with Congress anymore..........what business owner wouldn't want those advantages??

 

[FinanceDude]

The USPS has tried to cut the number of (mostly rural) post offices but they're hamstrung by the Postal Regulatory Commission and their BOD. They've also tried to eliminate Saturday delivery before but, again, they ran into opposition.

They're probably the only Constitutionally mandated government agency that has to turn a profit, and that's tough when anything they do, such as a stamp rate increase, has to be approved by bureaucrats that are balancing the USPS mandate and profits.

For example, Forever Stamps? What business would issue such money-losing products?!? The USPS asked for a 3 cent increase and the PRC told them to issue Forever Stamps and take a 2 cent increase instead.

yeah, and I have been repeatedly asking for 100 stamp ROLLS of the Forever stamps, and it seems the USPS has conveniently not printed them (on purpose)......wouldn't want anyone hoaring Forever stamps.......

 

[Westernskies]

Ok, here is a loaded question...
If the Post Office doesn't get any taxpayer funding, what happens when it loses money? Retained earnings only go so far; when they are operating in the red year after year, what keeps them afloat? Issuing more Forever stamps?

 

[Westernskies]

wouldn't want anyone hoaring Forever stamps.......

hoaring... in a government program?

 

[powerplay]

I wouldn't miss Saturday mail delivery so they can just go ahead and do it as they try to balance their budget.

The forever stamp was a good deal for those who stocked up before a rate increase. It does seem a little bit like a gift card though as long as USPS doesn't change the rules.

Loving my supply of Forever stamps here!

 

[mickeyd]

I have no problem with the USPS ending Saturday residential delivery. In fact, I think that they would do well to reduce home delivery to 2-3 times per week as an expense reduction tactic. There is nothing that I receive in the mail that can not be delayed a few days, or even a week, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Westernskies]

I have no problem with the USPS ending Saturday residential delivery. In fact, I think that they would do well to reduce home delivery to 2-3 times per week as an expense reduction tactic. There is nothing that I receive in the mail that can not be delayed a few days, or even a week, as far as I am concerned.

Great idea- they could cut their staff in half- sort one day, deliver the next...unfortunately, it would also put 300,000 pissed-off postal employees on the street- but maybe we could get them to guard the border...?

 

[Alan]

Ok, here is a loaded question...
If the Post Office doesn't get any taxpayer funding, what happens when it loses money? Retained earnings only go so far; when they are operating in the red year after year, what keeps them afloat? Issuing more Forever stamps?

This article answers your questions I think. If it is not able to make changes then it may need a taxpayer bailout. For me, I don't have a problem with no Saturday deliveries or closing many post offices. Even the Thatcher government in the UK which privatized many government programs stopped short at the Post Office, but did allow to cut deliveries and post offices etc.

Postal chief says post office running out of money

Even if the agency succeeds in reaching its planned cost cuts of $5.9 billion, there could still be a $6 billion deficit in 2010, Potter said.

"Without a change we will exhaust our cash resources," he said. "We can no longer afford business as usual."
.
.
.
.
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."