If a U.S. Post Office is losing money, it’s prohibited by law from closing. Not surprisingly, USPS — which lost $8.5 billion last fiscal year and currently owes the government $12 billion dollars — is pushing for Congress to change that, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.) has introduced legislation that would allow USPS to close a post office simply because it is unprofitable. Currently, USPS must have another reason — such as the retirement of a postmaster — before they can close a location. USPS is reviewing the half of its 32,000 post offices that are regularly running up deficits, but unless Carper’s legislation passes, that review won’t impact the organization’s ability to stop hemorrhaging money.
I don't know how this fits into my Conservative/Libertarian view of government, and I don't know exactly how to work it (though I have some thoughts), but I think of a postal service somewhat like defense - one of the few things that SHOULD be provided to the citizenry by their government.
To that end, a start, and it's just a start, would include 1)making the workers government employees again while making unionization illegal and 2)refusing to deliver junk mail. (I know, I know - how would one define junk mail.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's review USPS' TV/media ad budget first. How much do they spend on that every year?! Their bulk mail rates are still below net total costs to deliver such mail and need to be raised - given the current pay/pension/structural costs of USPS!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA US Postal Service with available post offices is basically in the Constitution, even if such Post Office isn't making a profit. It's one of the very few services government is required to provide, along with a Census and National Defense.
Please, please please!!!! Oh please. Close the Waelder, TX 78959 post office.
Bring it on!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's a post office in the Federal Building near where I work which rarely had much business before 9/11, and now with the security required rarely has anyone in it when I go there. A shoeshine stand or barbershop would have closed ages ago under the same circumstances.
Granted, there may be reasons for having official access to a post office in such a building, but there's no reason I can see for a storefront staffed all day for a handful of visitors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe local PO has the worst hours imagineable. It's almost like they don't want anyone to come in...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe they wouldn't have fiscal woes if they wouldn't have spent $31.9M on the US cycling team sponsorship (2001-2004)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does the Post Office lose money every year and FedEx and UPS thrive?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile government should provide for the post, I don't think they are required to have post offices be as ubiquitous as Starbucks. With postage meters, internet sales of stamps and other postage, convenient pick-up services, etc., the need to actual go to a post office is dwindling. And it costs money to maintain a "retail location" - especially the personnel that has to staff it - which seems a waste when only a handful of people are using the location on any given day anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCall me crazy, but I think a provision for an extensive postal service is an essential responsibility of government. It needn't everywhere be a _function_. Dense areas with large traffic can attract private service just fine. But the money-losing offices are exactly the ones the government should operate or subsidize.
The cost-structure and productivity suck imposed by the postal unions is another matter entirely. I would think better technology deployment would make these small offices more efficient and less costly. The postal employee benefits are expensive. And I imagine the productivity of the staff in these places probably compares well with some other the inefficiencies I'd expect in larger installations. But the union structure probably makes it hard to get at any of that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe don't want to restrict junk mail. It subsidizes the first class mail system! Modern Technology has dealt a tremendous blow to the mail system. When was the last time you received a letter from someone (discounting Christmas Cards). Everyone has multiple means of communicating with others. We use email, texting, home phones, cell phones, skype, faxes (ironically started by the Post Office), and pay our bills on-line! Those were all stamps. Heck, I'm writing a "letter to the editor" online! Most zip codes have post offices and smaller areas, like where I live, will have to do without. They also charge the same rate for all letters without regard for the distance travelled and handling required. This makes it easy for us to use our mailbox but doesn't make a whole lot of sense financially. I believe restructuring is in order, perhaps regional rates, no Saturday delivery (we don't really need it) and the consolidation of smaller post offices along with a review of pay and compensation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost of the problems with the Post Office come down to unions. The USPS is used as a piggy bank for various government employee unions even if that union has no direct connection to the USPS.
Add to this the mentality that a job at the USPS is an easy road to exceptional retirement benefits and that there is little to no chance of every being dismissed from that job insures that there is little that can be done to not run at a deficit while these conditions exist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCongress is empowered under the Constitution to create post offices and post roads, but they are not obligated to create or maintain them.
Some of my libertarian and conservative allies are a bit too caught up in tradition. Mail delivery is not an area--in contrast, for example, to law enforcement and national defense--where government should have any great role.
I think the days of the USPS as a quasi-governmental entity should end. The USPS should be entirely privatized and forced to compete in the marketplace. To the extent rural delivery service needs to be subsidized--and I'm open to that--the federal government can bid out the service to competing private entities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEnd Saturday delivery? I'd bet that most people don't need more than a couple of deliveries each week. I haven't received a significant check, bill or notice by snail mail in decades. Almost nothing urgent even comes by mail career anyway; its FedEx'd if its a significant document or check.
Sure, a significant portion of the population is either elderly or rural and a lack of post office access or more regular delivery MIGHT be burdensome. However, how is it not possible to have carriers themselves do post office functions? To make it most functional, there could be a phone number one could call to request a carrier to visit a home or business. Coordination of such visits could easily be managed through a centralized function and a minimum amount of communications to carriers (i.e. text messages on their phones).
A decade ago I suggested to a post office vp that an electronic delivery of email be set up by the post office to "register" emails like registered mail is, today, delivered. It would simply add a legal imprint to key communications and be a repository proving someone was notified. All the post office would need is server farm (now cheap) and they could charge fees and rents for such accounts. She said they were "already working on it. A decade ago. To me, the value still exists; a legally recognized and safe depository for communications and, possibly, documents.
How much revenue could that generate at a very low cost?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe post office could remain a reasonable service IF it is given flexibility and incentives to rationalize its efforts.
This liberal says privatize the delivery and retail functions of the post office. If we really need to guarantee postal delivery, just make sure everyone has a mailing address, cut up the rural areas into chunks, and auction it off: providers can bid for the lowest subsidy, so we can be reasonably assured we're not overpaying, and that provider can combine mail delivery with some other business to improve the bottom line.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI get irritated when I see the USPS advertising low rates for shipping (e.g. flat rate envelopes). It isn't a fair competition when you don't have to make a profit to stay in business. I do think the US government should provide a system of interpersonal communication, but "mail" was the state of the art when the Constitution was written, and not today. Not everyone has Internet access or a computer ot a telephone (e.g. and/or fax) capability, and these things are not expressly required by the Constitution. Perhaps an amendment could be considered to revise this part from explicitly referencing mail? I don't think the Constitution says how large the postal network has to be, or how many offices per capita there have to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only things I get in the mail that are important are government items - jury duty, vehicle registrations, social security updates, property tax notices, etc. Everything else I do online. Pretty telling huh?
I also agree with those about a USPS email, of course they didn't see it coming - they work for the government and live in their own little reality!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse