What can be done about the Post Office?

[joe97]

Tell the guy who said this:

There is a pinned thread for politics, go discuss it there.

Eliminate the mandate, and the Post Office is profitable.

Only if it was that easy. There are so many problems facing the USPS right now...

Why is profitability on the table when you had said the USPS is not required to make a profit (a sentiment I'd take no issues with)?

[PolskiHetzen]

Tell the guy who said this:






The GOP and their supporters are no supporters of Unions, correct? It's a secret hiding in plain sight.



The "biggest expense" facing the USPS is the Congressionally mandated, 75-year pre-funding of their pension plan. A mandate crafted by GOP legislators who (gasp!) have an antipathy to unions and saw an opportunity to break a big one.

Eliminate the mandate, and the Post Office is profitable.

Nice trick, though, to break something on purpose, then gain political points with the gullible by pointing out it's broken.

At the same time, decades of contractual promises made to unionized workers, including no-layoff clauses, are increasing the post office’s costs. Labor represents 80 percent of the agency’s expenses, compared with 53 percent at United Parcel Service and 32 percent at FedEx, its two biggest private competitors. Postal workers also receive more generous health benefits than most other federal employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Can you provide anything that proves what you're saying is the biggest expense? Or is it just more random s--t you spew?

[PolskiHetzen]

The GOP and their supporters are no supporters of Unions, correct? It's a secret hiding in plain sight.

The OP of what you quoted didn't mention parties. Neither did you. Now, after you can't address my concerns, you mention random stuff that doesn't apply.

[Robstr]

Only if it was that easy. There are so many problems facing the USPS right now...

Why is profitability on the table when you had said the USPS is not required to make a profit (a sentiment I'd take no issues with)?

What kind of nonsense logic are you using here?
You can think it doesn't need to be profitable and still recognize the fact that it would be profitable without the irrational pension requirements. The fact it's going to default is the whole reason this thread exists.

"So many problems right now"...So much lack of specificity in your argument.

[joe97]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Interesting read. Thanks for the link

I knew the USPS had actually made money in some years the last decade, but very healthy income at that from 2003-2006.

[joe97]

What kind of nonsense logic are you using here?
You can think it doesn't need to be profitable and still recognize the fact that it would be profitable without the irrational pension requirements. The fact it's going to default is the whole reason this thread exists.

"So many problems right now"...So much lack of specificity in your argument.

Problems have been listed throughout the thread. I am not re-hashing them.

Let me clarify: I was replying to the other poster about how he doesn't think the USPS needs to make a profit, which I can live with the statement. However, he is now saying mandated cost aside, the USPS would be profitable. All of the sudden profitability is an factor, where previously it didn't matter.

[vwtool]

There is a pinned thread for politics, go discuss it there.

Nice try. The sabotage of the USPS was a purely political ploy, and the greatest cause of its current economic woes. The GOP made this political.

Why is profitability on the table when you had said the USPS is not required to make a profit (a sentiment I'd take no issues with)?

I don't care if the USPS makes a profit or not, anymore than I care if the interstate highway system makes a profit. It's infrastructure.

Still, it's funny that if they could structure their pension obligations in a normal fashion, they would be profitable. It kinda throws the "government can't do anything right" argument out the window. The USPS is a huge organization with a difficult mandate, and still they'd be profitable without partisan meddling.

[vwtool]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link

I knew the USPS had actually made money in some years the last decade, but very healthy income at that from 2003-2006.

So go ahead and guess what year they were mandated to fund their pension for 75 years.

Healthy income until 2006, then the mandate takes effect.

So what was everyone saying about unions?

[PolskiHetzen]

So go ahead and guess what year they were mandated to fund their pension for 75 years.

Healthy income until 2006, then the mandate takes effect.

So what was everyone saying about unions?

How about you show some back up? I showed something for the whole union thing. You just kept saying things. Like your favorite candidate said last night, just because you repeat something a lot doesn't make it true.

[compy222]

The "biggest expense" facing the USPS is the Congressionally mandated, 75-year pre-funding of their pension plan. A mandate crafted by GOP legislators who (gasp!) have an antipathy to unions and saw an opportunity to break a big one.

Eliminate the mandate, and the Post Office is profitable.

wait...you want to stop pre-funding their pension plan...where does that shift the pension liabilities? oh wait, the PBGC/uncle sam and the public. so basically, you're not solving the problem, just guaranteeing the next generation foots the bill. this is the same problem GM and Chrysler were having...their liabilities were killing them via their retiree benefits. and instead of fixing the cash expenditure problems and structural instability of the USPS business model, you want to liability-shift all the employees pensions...which in turn creates a question mark on what/if they are going to get benefits (and who will be footing the bill for them). which i might add, doing this alone will NOT save the USPS' situation.

to quote the NYT article posted above:

Meanwhile, the agency has had a tough time cutting its costs to match the revenue drop, with a history of labor contracts offering good health and pension benefits, underused post offices, and laws that restrict its ability to make basic business decisions, like reducing the frequency of deliveries.

so their contracts are basically destroying the usps, but at the same time, we can't talk about changing those or else we are "union busting."

i don't want to resort to flaming or going after one member, but your argument is and every other political moderate on earth will agree that considering some changes, voiding, or renegotiation of these contracts must occur.

[vwtool]

wait...you want to stop pre-funding their pension plan...

For 75 years in advance yes.

...every other political moderate on earth will agree that considering some changes, voiding, or renegotiation of these contracts must occur.

They were making a profit with the same contract in place.

If you're in favor of what the GOP did to the USPS, you're not a "political moderate," you're an uniformed voter.

[compy222]

They were making a profit with the same contract in place.

If you're in favor of what the GOP did to the USPS, you're not a "political moderate," you're an uniformed voter.

umm...GM and Chrysler made profits 10 years ago too. the writing was on the wall then that they needed to take a serious look at their relationship with their employees and their burgeoning retiree costs. just because a company at some point in the past made a profit with their business model doesn't mean that business model will work forever. the dramatic drop in carried pieces of mail means USPS's business model, staffing, and benefit levels must shift in some way. this MUST involve some form of contract renegotiation as their current contracts (in and out of the union framework), do not allow them to change a lot of this.

just because you throw buzz words like "union busting, uninformed voter, and GOP conspiracy," does not mean that you are anymore qualified to solve this problem than a local dogcatcher. if you did a little research the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 actually required pre-funding for all current employees. However, OPM rules state 75 years as the required period to pre-fund for...so in reality, government bureaucracy is mandating the 75 years not the GOP. i might add that the 2006 law had bipartisan support, including a dem cosponsor.

also, "uninformed voter," is a very interesting use here. you do realize we live in a representative democracy, a republic. so i'm not voting for the USPS solution. I'm voting for the people that should solve the problem. the pure GOP or Democrat answers here probably won't work. the GOP proposal guts the service a bit too much, at the same time, there are issues with the Dem proposal as well. much like all things, the best idea is a blend of all these. there will need to be cuts in services, changes to contracts, and increases in fees COMBINED. of course, doing that is "all a GOP led evil conspiracy to subvert uninformed voters into hating the post office"

the list i originally put up is a large number of changes that include parts of both the Dem and GOP plans to change the post office. you singled out one point on the list of possibilities and start calling it a conspiracy to union bust. more like a conspiracy to make sure my mail still shows up.

[GreenandChrome]

Providing infrastructure for ALL of our citizens is what a government SHOULD do.

Yep. The business end/cost structure of USPS is it's issue. Not the inability to offer the service to US citizens.

And all businesses are struggling with retirement plans; after all, 80 million boomers are getting up there. Ones that are "forced" to offer and support are getting bent over by the workers (via union/gov't). Worker protectionism may look like a great plan to develop economic success, but history has shown us that the USA business world is short-sighted, and the gov't even more so.

[compy222]

just saw this article today...it appears that both republicans and democrats are working together to solve the post office liquidity problem.

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- The 2012 election season couldn't have come at a better time for the U.S. Postal Service.

While still low on cash, the postal service has enough to avoid insolvency this month, thanks in large part to the mountains of political junk mail and the influx of Super PACs paying top postage rates.

Federal candidates, political parties and special interest groups are mailing out more fliers and postcards via the postal service in 2012 than in previous election cycles. Spending topped $28.9 million through the end of August, compared to $27.9 million for the entire election cycle in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The postal service is on track to surpass an original estimate of $285 million, which includes the haul from local races nationwide, said Cliff Rucker, vice president of USPS sales.

It's still not enough to save the postal service. But it's enough to get the agency past an October cash crunch that the postal service had warned about. "Our liquidity situation remains serious," USPS spokesman David Partenheimer said. "We do expect election mail and the current holiday mailing season to help us get through this month's low point in our cash flow."

The USPS has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. A key reason was a 2006 law that required the postal service to make annual payments of about $5.5 billion for 10 years to pay for future retiree health benefits. The other big issue has been the dramatic drop in regular mail that most consumers use because the rise of technology has enabled electronic bill pay and instant communications like email, skype and texting. In the three months that ended June 30, the agency reported net losses of $5.2 billion.

Congress has been grappling with different bills to save the postal service, but no consensus has emerged. None are expected before next year. By spring, the postal service could again face the threat of insolvency. The election season has been a bright spot. Political consultants, who send direct mail, are predicting the 2012 political season to be the best yet for the postal service. "It's a presidential year, there's more money in the system, there's certainly more direct mail ... than there was two years ago," said Chris Cooper, managing director at SKD Knickerbocker, a political consulting firm that works with Democrats.

Roughly 15% of campaign spending goes toward political junk mail, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. If $2.5 billion is spent on the 2012 elections, as the the Center for Responsive Politics has estimated, it could push the tally as high as $375 million. The postal service is more conservative. Spokeswoman Patricia Licata says the USPS is hoping to meet or top its political haul from 2010, which was about $338 million.

One major reason for the large haul is the influx of Super PACs, the independent groups that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of cash on campaigns. Many Super PACs are funded with cash from large corporations and small groups of wealthy individuals. The Super PACs are also spending more because they don't qualify for postal service discounts of about 8 cents to 12 cents apiece reserved for candidates and political parties. Those can add up. Political groups also prefer direct mail, because they can "micro-target" certain geographic areas for specific, often negative, messages about opposing candidates.

"Much of the political mail is coming from the Super PACs, because you can send nastier messages about candidates with direct mail than you can in a television ad," said Alan Robinson, a postal policy consultant with Direct Communications Group. So far, Democrats are outspending Republicans using the postal service -- $17.8 million vs $10.2 million -- according to an analysis of campaign expenditures by the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/12/news...ml?iid=Popular

[J-Tim]

If Royal Mail can operate efficiently around the World, surely USPS could do the same.

Government operated postal service is the face of the nation and something that must not go private.