Post office default

[Cow Poke]

i'm not sure what the complaint is here exactly. The post office doesn't really operate as a business...

This is the whole key, and what the head of the Postal Service is appealing to congress. They have, for example, over 2,000 employes, many over the age of 70, who are on worker's compensation pay because the Postal Service is not allowed to terminate them. In a real business, after of time of making reasonable accommodations for a worker to return to work, the business is allowed to release them. There are many other very restrictive practices that keep costs artificially incredibly high, and if the Postal Service were allowed to operate as a business, there's a possibility they would be LESS upside down.

[NeilUnreal]

A long time ago, universal public mail was deemed a public good, one that also drives commerce and has social and educational benefits and side effects and so the driving force for coverage is not necessarily economic.

Exactly. One of the very reasons to have a public postal service is so that it can provide benefits and serve markets that might not be economical for a purely profit-driven business.

In other words, if the Post Office is doing its job right, it should be losing money.

-Neil

[Cow Poke]

Exactly. One of the very reasons to have a public postal service is so that it can provide benefits and serve markets that might not be economical for a purely profit-driven business.

In other words, if the Post Office is doing its job right, it should be losing money.

-Neil

I disagree -- I think it should be understandable that it COULD lose money, and probably WILL, but the loss of money is not proof of effectiveness.

[Jedidiah]

A very big part of the problem is the inability to maintain worker productivity. It is almost impossible to get rid of people who don't do much. I worked, many years ago, for the post office in San Francisco during the Christmas rush. My job was parcel post delivery. The first day I rode with another driver. He explained all the "tricks' to maximize pay and minimize work. Later I went to work in the APO facility. There were guys there with large cartloads of packages, slowly (very slowly) walking down the aisle as if they were going somewhere. They would stop often and visit with other guys loafing along the way. When they got to the end of the aisle they would turn around and start back again. Who knows what else is going on, I only worked there for a couple months.

This costs us money. Federal employees need to be subject to the same kind of work rules that private employees are.

[Cow Poke]

A very big part of the problem is the inability to maintain worker productivity. It is almost impossible to get rid of people who don't do much. I worked, many years ago, for the post office in San Francisco during the Christmas rush. My job was parcel post delivery. The first day I rode with another driver. He explained all the "tricks' to maximize pay and minimize work. Later I went to work in the APO facility. There were guys there with large cartloads of packages, slowly (very slowly) walking down the aisle as if they were going somewhere. They would stop often and visit with other guys loafing along the way. When they got to the end of the aisle they would turn around and start back again. Who knows what else is going on, I only worked there for a couple months.

This costs us money. Federal employees need to be subject to the same kind of work rules that private employees are.

And, like the public school system, it is nearly impossible to get rid of the non-performers or bad apples.

Also, when I worked at Ford Motor Company as a kid, I was "taught" by employees how to do the least possible work and still get paid, and if anybody made trouble, get a union steward to get the boss in trouble. We pay for that, too.

[nomad]

This is the whole key, and what the head of the Postal Service is appealing to congress. They have, for example, over 2,000 employes, many over the age of 70, who are on worker's compensation pay because the Postal Service is not allowed to terminate them. In a real business, after of time of making reasonable accommodations for a worker to return to work, the business is allowed to release them. There are many other very restrictive practices that keep costs artificially incredibly high, and if the Postal Service were allowed to operate as a business, there's a possibility they would be LESS upside down.

well, that's not really my point. when i think 'run as a business', i think 'for profit', with profits being the primary motive. i don't deny the postal service should be run more efficiently, but its real metric of effectiveness should not be measured by profit or loss like a business, but postal coverage per dollar spent or something along those lines.

There are profitable and unprofitable niches in shipping... more efficient private companies have taken over most of the profitable niches at this point I would imagine (we would have to assume this, if the USPS is as inefficient as we are saying), the only straggler possibly being letters in large cities (which may or may not be profitable, i don't know), which is protected by law. So i think it shouldn't be a surprise that the USPS is losing money.

[Cow Poke]

well, that's not really my point. when i think 'run as a business', i think 'for profit', with profits being the primary motive.

Due to the unusual mission of the Postal Service, I would agree that "profit" is not the primary motive --- but performing the mission in the most efficient manner should be.

i don't deny the postal service should be run more efficiently, but its real metric of effectiveness should not be measured by profit or loss like a business, but postal coverage per dollar spent or something along those lines.

And I have no problem with that -- but that has never appeared to even be a factor.

There are profitable and unprofitable niches in shipping... more efficient private companies have taken over most of the profitable niches at this point I would imagine (we would have to assume this, if the USPS is as inefficient as we are saying), the only straggler possibly being letters in large cities (which may or may not be profitable, i don't know), which is protected by law. So i think it shouldn't be a surprise that the USPS is losing money.

I think they have hidden behind this "we're the step child of the delivery service" nonsense way too long. They have been losing money for a LONG TIME, and it has been no secret that email was drastically changing communication. The "bloated bureaucracy" mindset that they'd always be able to get more money seems to have excused them from accountability. Kinda like Amtrak!

[Sparko]

Does anyone actually use the post office? All I get are bills and junk mail and I never send anything. Maybe going out of business would be a good thing. No more spam or bills! yay!

[Xru]

Does anyone actually use the post office? All I get are bills and junk mail and I never send anything. Maybe going out of business would be a good thing. No more spam or bills! yay!

I do all my shopping on amazon.com :)

[Soyeong]

Would it be so bad to privatize the postal service?

[Cow Poke]

Would it be so bad to privatize the postal service?

I don't think anybody would want it without serious subsidies due to the requirement to service even the most remote outposts.

Perhaps, if rural areas were restricted to one point delivery instead of a carrier having to drive down long dirt roads for one customer...

[Soyeong]

I don't think anybody would want it without serious subsidies due to the requirement to service even the most remote outposts.

Does that really need to be a requirement?

[Cow Poke]

Does that really need to be a requirement?

I'm sure there's an aspect of "equal service" --- it has always BEEN a requirement (though I don't know if it is actually codified) and a pullback from that would hurt a certain demographic more than others. It would be tough to decide who gets "door to door" service and who doesn't.

I can actually see, however, the kind of "group mailboxes" at entrances to subdivisions like you see at entrances to gated communities. MY neighborhood, for example, has about 20 families living back here in the woods with one way in and one way out -- a central mailbox housing at the entrance would make total sense to me.

It would save time, fuel, wear and tear on vehicles --- but it would eliminate jobs. One of the biggest obstacles in cutting back Postal Service costs is the unions who refuse to allow any such cutbacks.

[NeilUnreal]

I disagree -- I think it should be understandable that it COULD lose money, and probably WILL, but the loss of money is not proof of effectiveness.

I did exaggerate a bit for rhetorical purposes.

I agree with your comment here:

Due to the unusual mission of the Postal Service, I would agree that "profit" is not the primary motive --- but performing the mission in the most efficient manner should be.

I think the post office is a public good we need even if it never breaks even. However, there's no reason not to run it in an efficient and accountable manner and to demand the best from its employees.

-Neil

[Cow Poke]

I did exaggerate a bit for rhetorical purposes.

-Neil

And you do it so well -- I always enjoy reading you.