Friday Night Massacre at USPS

[TC Talks]

UPS doesn't want to deal with First Class mail. No one does, yet the service needs to exist.

[Deleted User 13307]

Residential First Class mail should be delivered less frequently.

One week your zip code gets mail M-W-Sa, the next week it's delivered Tu-Th-F. Want it more frequently? Pay for that service.

Delivery to commercial addresses stays the same.

[audiophile]

Residential First Class mail should be delivered less frequently.

One week your zip code gets mail M-W-Sa, the next week it's delivered Tu-Th-F. Want it more frequently? Pay for that service.

Delivery to commercial addresses stays the same.

I thought of this idea years ago, with a slightly different twist. It stays consistent week-to week, the carriers can cover two areas.

Right now the post office is flooded with Amazon packages. The are making separate runs just for package drop offs.

[Rate This]

Residential First Class mail should be delivered less frequently.

One week your zip code gets mail M-W-Sa, the next week it's delivered Tu-Th-F. Want it more frequently? Pay for that service.

Delivery to commercial addresses stays the same.

Wahoo... just double down on making it a business why don’t you? It’s supposed to be a fucking department...

[audiophile]

That's a bit of an overreaction. If we expanded your position, why should we have to pay at all for mail?

[km1125]

Residential First Class mail should be delivered less frequently.

One week your zip code gets mail M-W-Sa, the next week it's delivered Tu-Th-F. Want it more frequently? Pay for that service.

Delivery to commercial addresses stays the same.

I thought of this idea years ago, with a slightly different twist. It stays consistent week-to week, the carriers can cover two areas.

Right now the post office is flooded with Amazon packages. The are making separate runs just for package drop offs.

Well, you and a million other folks. Don't know why something like this hasn't been implemented yet. Well, yes I do.... They just keep giving more and more money instead of actually forcing the USPS to be more efficient. We'll all be paying for retirement benefits to the bloated organization for decades and decades on top of the interest on the borrowed funds to keep it operating at a loss for decades. All this extra traffic from Amazon should have them drowning in extra cash... Why aren't they??? They should be more efficient than UPS or a dedicated Amazon delivery truck to get a package to your house, yet they can't do it nearly as good. Why not??

[Rate This]

Residential First Class mail should be delivered less frequently.

One week your zip code gets mail M-W-Sa, the next week it's delivered Tu-Th-F. Want it more frequently? Pay for that service.

Delivery to commercial addresses stays the same.

I thought of this idea years ago, with a slightly different twist. It stays consistent week-to week, the carriers can cover two areas.

Right now the post office is flooded with Amazon packages. The are making separate runs just for package drop offs.

Well, you and a million other folks. Don't know why something like this hasn't been implemented yet. Well, yes I do.... They just keep giving more and more money instead of actually forcing the USPS to be more efficient. We'll all be paying for retirement benefits to the bloated organization for decades and decades on top of the interest on the borrowed funds to keep it operating at a loss for decades. All this extra traffic from Amazon should have them drowning in extra cash... Why aren't they??? They should be more efficient than UPS or a dedicated Amazon delivery truck to get a package to your house, yet they can't do it nearly as good. Why not??

They would actually be in the black without that pension law. So effectively they ARE drowning in cash that’s immediately going right back out the door for pensions. So the service is fine, it’s the law that’s fucked up.

[audiophile]

Can you show that minus pension they are at a profit?

[km1125]

They would actually be in the black without that pension law. So effectively they ARE drowning in cash that’s immediately going right back out the door for pensions. So the service is fine, it’s the law that’s fucked up.

EVERYONE who offers a pension - government or not - should be required to fully fund it, or the folks who are the beneficiaries should be required to sign off with an acknowledgement that "it could be eliminated or vaporize at any time in the future". It would force current administrations to resolve the burdens that these types of programs create. It would also force those beneficiaries to take a more realistic calculation of their retirement planning and opt for something more under their own control.

It's not the law that's fucked up, it's the crazy benefit packages that were offered for mostly entry-level jobs.

[Rate This]

They would actually be in the black without that pension law. So effectively they ARE drowning in cash that’s immediately going right back out the door for pensions. So the service is fine, it’s the law that’s fucked up.

EVERYONE who offers a pension - government or not - should be required to fully fund it, or the folks who are the beneficiaries should be required to sign off with an acknowledgement that "it could be eliminated or vaporize at any time in the future". It would force current administrations to resolve the burdens that these types of programs create. It would also force those beneficiaries to take a more realistic calculation of their retirement planning and opt for something more under their own control.

It's not the law that's fucked up, it's the crazy benefit packages that were offered for mostly entry-level jobs.

So a law REQUIRING 75 years of vested pensions isn’t fucked up? That’s the problem... not the benefit packages. Again... they would be PROFITABLE if not for this fuckery passed in 2006.

[km1125]

So a law REQUIRING 75 years of vested pensions isn’t fucked up? That’s the problem... not the benefit packages. Again... they would be PROFITABLE if not for this fuckery passed in 2006.

GEEZ!! Maybe you need to do a bit of reading and understand this is not a situation you understand.

Here's a primer:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/202 ... dc20a047f5

And here's some more (didn't take a lot of 'googling' to get these, either!):
"
....
Still, as we noted in 2011, the Postal Service’s problems are greater than the retirement rules.

The service’s own fact sheet says a House bill to scrap the pre-funding requirement "will not reduce our underlying liability for retiree health benefits, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position." COVID-19 has worsened that position further in recent weeks.

"The USPS is forecast to lose tens of billions of dollars over the next decade," the Trump administration’s 2018 report said. "Standalone proposals, such as forgiving the prefunding of post-employment benefits or renegotiating labor contracts, will be insufficient."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... us-postal/

[Deleted User 14896]

.... All this extra traffic from Amazon should have them drowning in extra cash... Why aren't they??? They should be more efficient than UPS or a dedicated Amazon delivery truck to get a package to your house, yet they can't do it nearly as good. Why not?? ....

I could be not quite right with what I'm about to say.
Isn't there something about the USPS not being able to raise rates to where they could make a profit?
I thought I've read before they take a loss on bulk mail and "external" package delivery, In other words, being the last mile for Amazon and possibly others.

It would seem from a business sense to set the rates to where you would be making a profit.
If bulk mailing and Amazon don't like the new price, they are free to explore other options to get their materials and goods delivered. If the bulk mailers and Amazon do go elsewhere, then that's less work for the post office, they can get their job done quicker, the overtime dries up, and the post office starts making a profit.

I know that's all a bit simplistic, but it's the thought that crosses my mind as I read all this.

[Lester The Nightfly]

.... All this extra traffic from Amazon should have them drowning in extra cash... Why aren't they??? They should be more efficient than UPS or a dedicated Amazon delivery truck to get a package to your house, yet they can't do it nearly as good. Why not?? ....

I could be not quite right with what I'm about to say.
Isn't there something about the USPS not being able to raise rates to where they could make a profit?
I thought I've read before they take a loss on bulk mail and "external" package delivery, In other words, being the last mile for Amazon and possibly others.

It would seem from a business sense to set the rates to where you would be making a profit.
If bulk mailing and Amazon don't like the new price, they are free to explore other options to get their materials and goods delivered. If the bulk mailers and Amazon do go elsewhere, then that's less work for the post office, they can get their job done quicker, the overtime dries up, and the post office starts making a profit.

I know that's all a bit simplistic, but it's the thought that crosses my mind as I read all this.

If you're not quite right, it's understandable. Amazon, USPS, UPS, FedEx and everyone else have floors of logistics specialists trying to figure it out as well.

Where is gets tricky in terms of the Amazon-USPS relationship. If USPS decided to charge a premium on handling Amazon's business, most certainly AMZN would look to divert what they could elsewhere. They've already done so with FedEx, and they are purchasing dozens of Boeing aircraft to reduce their reliance on UPS. You'd have to ask FedEx how well that is working out for them but they, like the USPS have a certain amount of fixed costs that are going to be there whether they are moving one package or one hundred thousand packages. Better to spread those costs out by maintaining volume or better to reduce the size of the infrastructure? Again, you'd have to ask those floors of logistics wonks.

However what doesn't help is some loose cannon political appointee cowboy who has demonstrable conflict of financial interest acting upon the wishes of a President who doesn't like one of postal services largest customers and who doesn't like ballots moved by mail.

[Rate This]

So a law REQUIRING 75 years of vested pensions isn’t fucked up? That’s the problem... not the benefit packages. Again... they would be PROFITABLE if not for this fuckery passed in 2006.

GEEZ!! Maybe you need to do a bit of reading and understand this is not a situation you understand.

Here's a primer:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/202 ... dc20a047f5

And here's some more (didn't take a lot of 'googling' to get these, either!):
"
....
Still, as we noted in 2011, the Postal Service’s problems are greater than the retirement rules.

The service’s own fact sheet says a House bill to scrap the pre-funding requirement "will not reduce our underlying liability for retiree health benefits, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position." COVID-19 has worsened that position further in recent weeks.

"The USPS is forecast to lose tens of billions of dollars over the next decade," the Trump administration’s 2018 report said. "Standalone proposals, such as forgiving the prefunding of post-employment benefits or renegotiating labor contracts, will be insufficient."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... us-postal/

It is still a necessary step. What DeJoy is doing in delaying mail by weeks in some cases is not the answer. It does benefit companies he has stock in however. The corruption here is breathtaking.

[Deleted User 13307]

Any service needs to adapt to its environment. The USPS still operates like it did when they rolled out ZIP codes long before how time sensitive information is sent and delivered.

It can still be a service and evolve with the times.