Poll: How Would You Solve the Post Office Budget Shortfall?
The United States Postal Service (USPS) is facing financial difficulties due to declining use and rising costs.
The USPS has an idea to address their budget shortfall:
Under the Postal Service plan for five-day delivery:
- Mail will not be delivered to street addresses on Saturday, and mail will not be collected from blue street collection boxes or Post Offices on Saturday. Also, there will be no Saturday pickup of mail from homes and businesses.
- Mail addressed to Post Office Boxes will continue to be delivered on Saturday.
- Post Offices will remain open on Saturdays. No Post Office will be closed as a result of the change to five-day delivery.
- Express Mail will continue to be delivered seven days a week.
- Outgoing mail may still be dropped off at a Post Office or in a collection box on Saturday, and will be canceled and processed on Monday.
- Bulk mail acceptance that now takes place on Saturday and Sunday will continue.
The Postal Service does not take this change lightly and woud not propose it if six-day service could be supported by current volumes. However, there is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery. Ten years ago the average household received five pieces of mail every day. Today it receives four pieces, and by 2020 that number will fall to three. Reducing street delivery to five days will help rebalance postal operations with the needs of today’s customers. It also will save about $3 billion a year, including reductions in energy use and carbon emissions. (USPS Five-Day Plan)
Postal delivery is the subject of the poll this week. I ask what should be done to solve the crisis. I rarely send/receive mail anymore so if it were up to me it would be delivered once a week and cost more. The poll is in the right sidebar.
– Steve Patterson
Four or three days a week – there’s nothing I’m receiving these days (bills and junk mail)Â that I can’t wait one more day for!
Four or three days a week – there’s nothing I’m receiving these days (bills and junk mail) that I can’t wait one more day for!
Funny, privatization would probably end service in many red states. I imagine its more efficient to deliver mail in New York City than Alaska.
Funny, privatization would probably end service in many red states. I imagine its more efficient to deliver mail in New York City than Alaska.
I like the way you think!
UPS will deliver a letter from from St. Louis to Creve Coeur for $22, FedEx will do it for $9.95. If people want to privatize the post office, they can use one of these options now.
I like the way you think!
Letter carrier association has been running an ad calling out congress on the fact that USPS is required to pre-pay pension obligations as per a law passed in 2006.  I agree with stipulation/requirement as letter carriers are probably the only eployees who truly have their pension covered, considering that most private pensions were raided before the money ever got to the workers or the simple fact that private industry dropped pensions altogether. Public pensions will not do much better considering that a lot of state and local governments have simply chosen not to make their pension payments as a means to balance budgets. In other words, I would be careful what you ask for if your a letter carrier. Let USPS downsize the number of employees, number of post offices & number of days of delivery or quit paying into a well funded pension plan.
The reality is that nothing is going to fundamentally change until congress actually starts to legislate from the middle ground. Until then, another self created mess compliments of our politicians.
Letter carrier association has been running an ad calling out congress on the fact that USPS is required to pre-pay pension obligations as per a law passed in 2006. I agree with stipulation/requirement as letter carriers are probably the only eployees who truly have their pension covered, considering that most private pensions were raided before the money ever got to the workers or the simple fact that private industry dropped pensions altogether. Public pensions will not do much better considering that a lot of state and local governments have simply chosen not to make their pension payments as a means to balance budgets. In other words, I would be careful what you ask for if your a letter carrier. Let USPS downsize the number of employees, number of post offices & number of days of delivery or quit paying into a well funded pension plan.
The reality is that nothing is going to fundamentally change until congress actually starts to legislate from the middle ground. Until then, another self created mess compliments of our politicians.
The pension funding requirement is only one half of the problem. The other half is that volume has dropped by 20% over the past decade, and is predicted to drop by another 30% over the next decade, with a parallel drop in relative income. There’s an opportunity cost in having a letter carrier pass by (and usually stop at) every address in the country six days a week. From Steve’s quote, the average address received 30 pieces of mail a week in 2000, 24 in 2010, and will likely receive only 18 in 2020. The math is pretty clear – half the income should result in half the service. Expecting the postal service to maintain six-day-a-week service makes about as much sense as requiring the phone company to maintain a robust network of pay phones – if few people are actually using them, why?! Adapt or die!
Don’t disagree on that fact of declining use/revenues is the other half.
My vote was for reducted service. However, voted other as I think USPS should try reduced service a couple ways such as keep Saturday but drop one or two weekday while keeping PO’s to six days. You drop two days of mail service and you could essentially provide service every other day – Mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, Friday & Saturday. No mail delivery on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. That would be my preference.
Of course, like all things USPS we are back to Congress and their specific mandates.
The challenge (not insurmountable) with non-consecutive days is staffing – as an employee, would you like to be scheduled to work “Monday, Wednesday, Friday & Saturday” every week, with “Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday” as your days off?! That’s why five days a week (eliminating Saturdays) or three days a week (M-W-F / T-T-S) are more attractive to both managers and employees. (Three days a week would be similar to the current scheduling, with a regular employee working 4 or 5 days a week and a rotating employee covering the other day or two; the big difference is that two routes would be covered instead of one, netting probably a 40% reduction in carrier headcount.)
UPS will deliver a letter from from St. Louis to Creve Coeur for $22, FedEx will do it for $9.95. If people want to privatize the post office, they can use one of these options now.
The pension funding requirement is only one half of the problem. The other half is that volume has dropped by 20% over the past decade, and is predicted to drop by another 30% over the next decade, with a parallel drop in relative income. There’s an opportunity cost in having a letter carrier pass by (and usually stop at) every address in the country six days a week. From Steve’s quote, the average address received 30 pieces of mail a week in 2000, 24 in 2010, and will likely receive only 18 in 2020. The math is pretty clear – half the income should result in half the service. Expecting the postal service to maintain six-day-a-week service makes about as much sense as requiring the phone company to maintain a robust network of pay phones – if few people are actually using them, why?! Adapt or die!
5 day service sounds fine to me.  I had that when I lived in Canada and did’t see any issue with it.  Additionally USPS could charge appropriate postage to cover their costs.  That’s what other businesses do.
5 day service sounds fine to me. I had that when I lived in Canada and did’t see any issue with it. Additionally USPS could charge appropriate postage to cover their costs. That’s what other businesses do.
…oh and abolish home delivery. Given that most of the mail I get is junk I could just pick it up once a week from a “speed box” or the local post office.
…oh and abolish home delivery. Â Given that most of the mail I get is junk I could just pick it up once a week from a “speed box” or the local post office.
Pass HR 1351. NO other agency has to pre-pay pensions 75 years out within a 10-year window. The politicians are helping the federal government, keeper of the federal budget, siphon off the off-budget revenue of the USPS (generated by the sales of products and services). National government movement of mail is mandated by the constitution’s charge to congress in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 7. We hear some people, including politicians like Darrell Issa, Â beat their chests and proclaim, “We must return to the constitution!” Then they turn around and try to destroy the postal service. That’s constitutional hypocracy.
Pass HR 1351. NO other agency has to pre-pay pensions 75 years out within a 10-year window. The politicians are helping the federal government, keeper of the federal budget, siphon off the off-budget revenue of the USPS (generated by the sales of products and services). National government movement of mail is mandated by the constitution’s charge to congress in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 7. We hear some people, including politicians like Darrell Issa, beat their chests and proclaim, “We must return to the constitution!” Then they turn around and try to destroy the postal service. That’s constitutional hypocracy.
Not trying to be snarky or overly cynical, I’m always leery of a union-led charge that Congress is trying to do something bad. First, “NO other agency” – isn’t the USPS a unique animal? Why shouldn’t they be subject to unique regulations? And given the downward trend on the revenue side, why isn’t it smart to prefund pension obligations? The two other alternatives would seem to be less attractive, either future reductions in benefits or seeking additional funding out of general revenues. We’re seeing a similar struggle on the local level, where both the city and the SLPS are struggling to meet pension obligations that were underfunded over at least the past decade. My limited knowledge on the topic makes it seem like Congress actually got it right the first time, by making the USPS make actuarially-based contributions, not just what is comfortable or historical.
Don’t disagree on that fact of declining use/revenues is the other half.Â
My vote was for reducted service. However, voted other as I think USPS should try reduced service a couple ways such as keep Saturday but drop one or two weekday while keeping PO’s to six days. You drop two days of mail service and you could essentially provide service every other day – Mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, Friday & Saturday. No mail delivery on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. That would be my preference.
Of course, like all things USPS we are back to Congress and their specific mandates.
The challenge (not insurmountable) with non-consecutive days is staffing – as an employee, would you like to be scheduled to work “Monday, Wednesday, Friday & Saturday” every week, with “Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday” as your days off?! That’s why five days a week (eliminating Saturdays) or three days a week (M-W-F / T-T-S) are more attractive to both managers and employees. (Three days a week would be similar to the current scheduling, with a regular employee working 4 or 5 days a week and a rotating employee covering the other day or two; the big difference is that two routes would be covered instead of one, netting probably a 40% reduction in carrier headcount.)
Not trying to be snarky or overly cynical, I’m always leery of a union-led charge that Congress is trying to do something bad. First, “NO other agency” – isn’t the USPS a unique animal? Why shouldn’t they be subject to unique regulations? And given the downward trend on the revenue side, why isn’t it smart to prefund pension obligations? The two other alternatives would seem to be less attractive, either future reductions in benefits or seeking additional funding out of general revenues. We’re seeing a similar struggle on the local level, where both the city and the SLPS are struggling to meet pension obligations that were underfunded over at least the past decade. My limited knowledge on the topic makes it seem like Congress actually got it right the first time, by making the USPS make actuarially-based contributions, not just what is comfortable or historical.
A good reason is that the Post Office is required to pay 75 years worth of retirement upfront within 10 years and they over payed about $5 billion. The USPS isn’t broke they all that money in the retirement pool but Congress won’t let them touch it. Also they get an 80% of what they made while working, while retired through their pension. All that junk mail and postage is what funds the post office. Sure the economy and ever rising gas prices ,along with people paying bills online have something to do with it to.
A good reason is that the Post Office is required to pay 75 years worth of retirement upfront within 10 years and they over payed about $5 billion. The USPS isn’t broke they all that money in the retirement pool but Congress won’t let them touch it. Also they get an 80% of what they made while working, while retired through their pension. All that junk mail and postage is what funds the post office. Sure the economy and ever rising gas prices ,along with people paying bills online have something to do with it to.