Slashdot Mirror


Adapting the Post Office To the Digital Age

Hugh Pickens writes "Paul B. Carroll and Chunka Mui write in the Washington Post that with projected deficits through 2020 of $238 billion, the debate over potential changes at the US Postal Service is like a fight over the dessert bar on the Titanic: email has already supplanted letters, more people will send money via PayPal rather than mail checks, people will download their movies and books, check their bills online, and receive information about their investments electronically. Delivery volume for first-class mail fell 22 percent from 1998 through 2007, tumbled an additional 13 percent last year and was down 3 percent in the first half of this year despite heavy mailings from the Census Bureau. USPS's future lies in things that need to be delivered physically: shoes, computers and other objects, and the USPS has assets that could let it take on UPS and FedEx. 'USPS needs to start with the future and work backward to the present,' write Carroll and Mui. 'It needs to forecast volumes for all types of its business five, 10 and 15 years out and design a business model that will thrive under those scenarios. Only then can it figure out what radical changes need to be made now.'"

299 comments

  1. Remove the artificial monopoly by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The first thing that needs to be done is to remove the artificial monopoly congress created for the USPS making it so they are the only ones that can deliver first-class mail, once this happens more people will use mail (USPS or otherwise) because the inefficiency will be gone because it will either be deliver or go broke.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by ErikTheRed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then remove their union contract that states that they can never decrease their workforce, even if they don't need as many workers due to reduced volume.

      Here's what I don't get: the Political Left tells us out of one side of their mouth that only the government can be the perfect master of fairness in the workplace, and out of the other side of their mouth they tell us that government workers need unions. At the most, one of these can be true. Some would argue that neither is true...

      --

      Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    2. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or carriers won't deliver to the countryside...

    3. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by 2Y9D57 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The monopoly has been removed here in the Netherlands, and the old monopolist -- now owned by TNT -- is going broke. States granted a monopoly on mail delivery in return for a commitment to deliver to every address -- the private companies only want the easy work, delivering in towns and cities. Once the former monopolist goes broke, mail delivery in rural areas will stop forever. To prevent this from happening, the Dutch government will eventually have to legislate -- tinkering with the business models of the competitors -- or accept that if you live in a village or on a farm, you have to drive to the nearest town to pick up your mail.

    4. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And then remove their union contract that states that they can never decrease their workforce, even if they don't need as many workers due to reduced volume.

      I don't know where you got that notion from but it simply doesn't match reality as I have seen. Post Offices in small towns have closed recently due to decreased volume and the employees from those offices have been let go. Existing offices are not hiring, even to replace retiring workers.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by kimvette · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And then remove their union contract that states that they can never decrease their workforce, even if they don't need as many workers due to reduced volume.

      You cannot convince me they never decrease their workforce. For ten years local post offices with 2 to 6 service windows consistently have only one customer service person on staff at any given time, even through the holiday times. The only time they seem to add anyone on any more is tax day.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    6. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A lot of that "inefficiency" is that mailing a letter from a rural village in the south to a similar village in Alaska costs the same (and has roughly the same quality of service) as mailing a letter from one side of a major city to the other. If you break up the monopoly and allow USPS to exit markets it finds unprofitable, a whole lot of places will stop getting mail. If you break up the monopoly but do not allow USPS to exit markets, then their revenue will reduce even further as the popular ones are taken by competitors.

      Also as far as USPS is concerned, a county made up mostly of farms that sees 15 pieces of legitimate mail a month is not worth their time. But when those 15 pieces of legitimate mail are vital to our food supply...

    7. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      OK, in general I am against artificial monopolies, but you can't just say, 'get rid of the monopoly and it will fix everything.' That is a fantasy.

      In the first place, you have to demonstrate that there are massive inefficiencies that will make a difference. Then you have to demonstrate that getting rid of those inefficiencies will somehow make a difference. I mean, do you really think that if a first-class stamp costs 10 cents less, or if a letter arrives 10 hours sooner it will somehow make people want to send letters? Physical mail will never compete with email for speed or cost; this isn't a problem of monopolies or inefficiencies but a matter of physics.

      Monopolies are bad, sure, but don't be braindead about it, think sometimes!

      --
      Qxe4
    8. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,

      Work for the government and am part of a union (management here inspires awe with the inventive ways they have for incompetence).

      Nothing inspires more hatred of government than working for it.

    9. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly this happened in Sweden.

      The postal service had a monopoly on delivering mail across all of Sweden. The postal service was regulated by law to cover as much of the country as possible.

      Then the monopoly law was removed, opening up for City Mail. City Mail took over the profitable city areas while completely ignoring the unprofitable countryside. The postal service is now having extreme difficulties to maintain itself, because it is suffering from competition within the only profitable districts. This leads to lack of efficiency and inhumane policies at the postal service workplaces thanks to regulations from management. (I should know, I have worked there)

      Competition doesn't lead to efficiency if the competition isn't equal, and the competition isn't equal because the postal office still has to serve the countryside. You could say that the regulation is the fault of the government, but the fucking POINT of the postal service is to serve mail everywhere. If that regulation is removed then the countryside will no longer get any mail as the postal service and city mail will both compete within the profitable areas.

      The only other possibility is that prices in the countryside explode to ridiculous levels to compensate for the lack of profit in these areas.

    10. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Responding to your strawman:

      Even if the 'Political Left' says the government can be the perfect master of fairness, this doesn't mean that unions are useless. It is only because you don't understand unions that you would say this. Unions have started strikes and opposed policies of their employers when it was needed. But this isn't the only thing that unions do. Unions provide a forum for workers of similar skills, set rules of seniority and advancement, and negotiate their contracts from the point of view of the worker. They also handle discipline issues and take care of people in trouble (illnesses, deaths, etc.). As such, they are often very useful to an employer. I work in a nuclear plant and we are almost completely unionized. I work in management (non-union) and I find the unions to be incredibly helpful, not the least of which is because unions do not tolerate safety issues. The fact that unions will go out of their way to protect their workers from safety issues is more useful to me than I can describe. It is my opinion that if there would have been an effective union on the Deepwater Horizon rig, the management shortcuts wouldn't have been tolerated.

    11. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between "decreasing workforce due to decreased workload" and "closing down entirely because you can no longer afford to pay enough staff to deliver 100,000 letters a day when only 1,000 letters a day actually need delivering"

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    12. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by hitmark · · Score: 1

      seen something similar in norway as well. Here the post offices outside of cities are basically gone, replaced with some kind of partnership with a local store or gas station (tho funny enough, that have lead to better opening hours, as the post offices used to maintain normal office ours, not store hours).

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    13. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      Would you hire additional workers if you were forced to do so only on the condition that you could never fire any of them without closing down entirely?

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    14. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

      Why should city dwellers have to pay more for their mail delivery in order to subsidize the rural dwellers? By the same token should those of us who live near a major hub airport pay more for flights so that those who need to take a connecting flight don't need to pay any more for their travel than we do? How about this: regulate private mail delivery companies so they have to deliver to everybody and to charge different rates according to the true cost, but have them charge the difference to the government. That way at least the subsidy will be clear, not obfuscated like it is now.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    15. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      FedEx, UPS, or any other carrier should only be allowed to deliver first class mail if they will deliver it to every address in the United States every day Monday through Saturday. Otherwise, fuck them. If you don't put those conditions on it you'll start to find that people in rural areas are cut off from mail service altogether.

    16. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      set rules of seniority and advancement

      Indeed they do.

      There's no real reason to improve your skill set in a Union Shop. There's probably a sandbagger with more seniority than you in line before you for a promotion anyway.

    17. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should city dwellers have to pay more for their mail delivery in order to subsidize the rural dwellers?

      As the GP posted:

      Also as far as USPS is concerned, a county made up mostly of farms that sees 15 pieces of legitimate mail a month is not worth their time. But when those 15 pieces of legitimate mail are vital to our food supply..

      Maybe you can grow enough food for the people living in your highrise apartment building up on the roof. Good luck. Send us a postcard telling us how it went. Ooops...

    18. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by spasm · · Score: 5, Informative

      The contract between USPS and the APWU doesn't say they can "never decrease their workforce" at all.

      You may be thinking of the part of the contract which says that employees hired before September 15, 1978 have "lifetime protection against layoff" (Article 6(1)), and that employees who have more than six years service have a more limited set of protections against layoff (Article 6(2)). Everyone else gets sixty days notice (Article 6(B) and 6(C)).

      The Joint Contract Interpretation Manual is here, and took me a whole five seconds to find via google.

    19. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the most, one of these can be true.

      Your argument assumes no Republicans or Libertarians in government. The unions are needed to counteract them.

    20. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by SagSaw · · Score: 1

      Also as far as USPS is concerned, a county made up mostly of farms that sees 15 pieces of legitimate mail a month is not worth their time. But when those 15 pieces of legitimate mail are vital to our food supply...

      So why not make those farmers in the middle of nowhere pay for the costs of delivering their mail (and of providing other government services to isolated areas)? If, without the various subsidies, they can no longer afford to farm that land, we should encourage them to relocate and farm other land where government services can be more easily provided. It might be better to pay the farmers' costs to relocate to a place where they can farm more efficiently than to continue subsidize their costs to run a farm in the middle of nowhere.

      --
      Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
    21. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I assume you know based on your name, complete postal privatization has occurred in Japan, and it's been extremely successful. (Although it is still well-regulated.)

    22. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because you live in a nation-state where everyone gets access to government services equally.

      Lets take your argument to services other than mail

      Why should people from states not attacked on 9/11 fight in Afghanistan? Why should states without military bases get defended by the United States military?

      Why should tax money from the wealthy go to the poor?

    23. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would result in either no service or very expensive service for rural areas.

    24. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by perpetual+pessimist · · Score: 1

      Do you really want pig farms to move in next to you? How about a slaughterhouse?

      Farming isn't all beautiful waves of grain and rolling meadows with horses frolicking. Some things need to be out in the middle of nowhere. But those places also need to be connected to the rest of the country -- that is, after all, where the food comes from.

    25. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Funny

      And then remove their union contract that states that they can never decrease their workforce, even if they don't need as many workers due to reduced volume.

      Better idea: just negotiate this in their next contract. Any union worth its membership dues will recognize the occasionally necessity of layoffs, and be willing to trade a "no layoffs" policy for a fair layoffs policy. (ideally, one that spells out what criteria are used, and places laid off workers in a "hire back" list.)

      NY state workers are almost all unionized, and the only reason that we haven't had any layoffs is that Paterson is a short-sighted moron, who made a dumb deal with the unions last year and tried to do something not addressed in the contract this year. (We ARE making ready for layoffs at the end of the year, when Paterson's moronic deal runs out.)

    26. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abolish 2nd-class mail. If it isn't worth at least $0.44 to get it to me, I don't want it.

    27. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by drsquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the increased competition will remove economies of scale, making it more expensive and less efficient. Imagine you have a street with twenty houses. As it stands, one postman walks up and delivers the mail to all twenty houses. Now imagine there are four competing companies. Four vans drive up, four postmen get out with a bag that's only a quarter full, they all walk up the street, each delivering to five houses.

      You've taken four times as many man hours, and four times the transport infrastructure to deliver the same amount of mail. How does this increase efficiency and reduce costs?

    28. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paterson is a short-sighted moron

      I thought he was blind.

    29. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 1

      Heh. I didn't know that at all. Japan has the benefit of quite extreme population density afaik, though.

      20 people per sqkm vs 337 people per sqkm.

    30. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a big problem with this: if you remove the monopoly on low-priority mail (1st class and below), then the USPS will go bankrupt quickly if the other carriers are able to do it cheaper in big cities. Then, you'll have mail delivery in major metro areas, and nowhere else. Small towns, rural areas, will all no longer get mail service.

      The Founders knew that mail delivery was vital for democracy (and if they could be resurrected, they would say the exact same thing about the Internet), and that it had to be protected. Leaving it to private interests would not guarantee service to ALL Americans (including the farmers that supply our food, or at least are supposed to if they weren't being put out of business by big agribusiness corporations), only those where it's profitable to give them service.

      Basically, you're trying to lead us into a corporatist fascism where big corporations provide everything that the government is supposed to, and services will no longer be provided fairly and equally, but based on profitability.

    31. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The same reason people who make more money should pay more taxes. You may not agree with it, but it has worked for the US for at least my 40 years.

    32. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you're getting his point.

      The "political left" tells us that the government already handles contract negotiations, discipline issues, and the rest fairly. If that's true, then unions are clearly not needed.

      On the other hand, the same "political left" tells us that unions are necessary to represent the workers to make sure contract negotiations, discipline issues, etc. are handled fairly.

      If they are telling the truth on the first point, then government workers shouldn't need unions, because the government already treats its workers fairly.

      If government workers need unions to represent them, then the government is no more "fair" than any other employer.

      I may have misinterpreted, but I think his point is that somebody is lying to us.

    33. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only other possibility is that prices in the countryside explode to ridiculous levels to compensate for the lack of profit in these areas.

      Or, instead of simply removing the monopoly protection, extend it to any participant who wants to meet the same terms. If City Mail wants to deliver mail to any part of the country, then they have to deliver mail to ALL parts of the country.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    34. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by winwar · · Score: 1

      "...once this happens more people will use mail (USPS or otherwise) because the inefficiency will be gone because it will either be deliver or go broke."

      This is just plain stupid. I'm not going to start sending more letters because there are more options to send them. Even if they happen to be slightly cheaper. I send things through the mail because there is no other option (email, online). Things like government correspondence, contracts and the like. It happens to be cheap, reliable and recognized as reliable by all parties.

    35. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      if you live in a village or on a farm, you have to drive to the nearest town to pick up your mail.

      I don't see why people get so upset about that. There are a lot of trade-offs to living out in the sticks, and driving to town to get mail would be a minor inconvenience compared to some of them.

    36. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by coolgeek · · Score: 1

      Actually, that artificial monopoly is what makes it possible to send a letter for a uniform price, regardless of where the recipient is. I just visited my relatives who live in Julian, CA yesterday. UPS charges a fairly hefty rural surcharge to deliver to their door.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    37. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And then remove their union contract that states that they can never decrease their workforce

      Why do you care what contract postal workers have? You don't pay for it. The USPS has been self-sufficient since 1972 and have a much higher customer satisfaction rating than either UPS or FedEx. They have higher public favorability ratings than the National Park Service, the US Forest Service or NASA. Apparently most Americans don't agree with your criticisms of the USPS

      And what makes you think you know what staffing levels they need or don't need?

      Here's what I don't get about the Political Right: They claim to believe in "free markets" but don't want workers to be able to collectively bargain for their own best contracts. The only reason the US had a healthy middle class for so many years is because of labor unions. It's not accidental that the attacks on Labor that started under Ronald Reagan and the subsequent decline of unions has coincided with the decline of the middle class and the decline of the US manufacturing sector. Manufacturing in the US was healthiest when labor unions were healthiest. Germany, which is arguably the most successful free manufacturing/exporting economy on Earth happens to be the country with the most favorable laws regarding labor unions.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would you hire additional workers if you were forced to do so only on the condition that you could never fire any of them without closing down entirely?

      Sorry, but the USPS is perfectly capable of reducing their work force without "closing down entirely". I'm not sure where you got the notion that it's otherwise.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hi,

      Work for the government and am part of a union (management here inspires awe with the inventive ways they have for incompetence).

      Nothing inspires more hatred of government than working for it.

      Just post as yourself, "EriktheRed". Sockpuppets are embarrassing (or should be).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The "political left" tells us that the government already handles contract negotiations, discipline issues, and the rest fairly.

      Can you please supply a citation where the "political left" says anything like this?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    41. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Hummdis · · Score: 1

      Exactly! They claim to have lower rates but there are federal laws that prohibit UPS, FedEx, DHL and any other courier services from underselling the government. Therefore, even if they could/would undersell, they can't according to federal law.

    42. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the Political Left tells us out of one side of their mouth that only the government can be the perfect master of fairness in the workplace

      I'm going to give you a chance to supply one example of "the Political Left" saying this. Please. Here's your opportunity to prove that you're not just making stuff up.

      All it has to be is some citation that says anything even close to what you're claiming. One single example that supports your argument is all I ask.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    43. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's no real reason to improve your skill set in a Union Shop. There's probably a sandbagger with more seniority than you in line before you for a promotion anyway.

      Promotions in union shops are not based solely on seniority. It's a myth perpetrated by people who don't really care whether something they say is true, as long as it supports their anti-US government agenda.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    44. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should city dwellers have to pay more for their mail delivery in order to subsidize the rural dwellers?

      We are not supposed to be a nation of selfish pricks nitpicking every aspect of society making sure that not one red cent of our money is benefiting somebody else.

      Libertarians have the unique privilege of arguing for a system that no one has ever had to suffer under.

    45. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by ErikTheRed · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you got that notion from but it simply doesn't match reality as I have seen. Post Offices in small towns have closed recently due to decreased volume and the employees from those offices have been let go. Existing offices are not hiring, even to replace retiring workers.

      I've got your reality right here. Well, strictly speaking, 584,000 of the 600,000 USPS workers are covered by the no-layoffs clause. Sue me.

      From their labor union's blog:

      http://labornotes.org/node/1947

      (as far as I know, the layoffs they were fearing did not materialize)

      And from the CATO institute:

      http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/the-postal-services-union-problem

      --

      Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    46. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Not one cent? Are you joking or what? Most of us pay almost 50% of our income to benefit others.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    47. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Is you point that we should pay for farmers mail, otherwise they won't sell us food? How about I pay a true market price for food and they pay true market price for mail delivery.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    48. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by scross · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      'Flamebait' != 'Disagree'. The parent makes a valid point. There's no reason for people living in towns/cities to subsidise those who choose to live in rural areas, by monopoly, taxes or otherwise. Also, encouraging people to live in larger settlements is both an economically and environmentally sound suggestion.

    49. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USPS has been self-sufficient since 1972 and have a much higher customer satisfaction rating than either UPS or FedEx.

      Source?

    50. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can decrease their workforce. If a part-time flexible doesn't have 6 years of continuous service then they can be laid off. As for the career employee's, they can't be laid off.
      We're probably the only "federal" workforce that needs their labor unions.

    51. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > A lot of that "inefficiency" is that mailing a letter from a rural village in the south to a similar village in Alaska costs the same (and has roughly the same quality of service) as mailing a letter from one side of a major city to the other.

      And even that "inefficiency" isn't very inefficient. It's a little further from the village to the nearest postal shipping center than it would be for a larger community, but that's about it. Since the post office has to handle the mail for the whole village, there's enough bulk to still make it worthwhile. (Especially in a remote village - they send and receive a lot more packages than a city dweller would, and that IS a net win to have it all come in one truck instead of a hundred people driving themselves individually the same distance).

      Does it cost more for the extreme corner case letter than average? Sure, but very little of the US population is really that rural anymore. Given that the vast bulk of mail the USPS moves is much shorter distances, I doubt cutting the rural stuff out of the picture would drop our stamp prices even one whole cent. Most of the travel is over the same infrastructure as everything else, it's only that last hour on the truck that makes the rural mailbox any different from mine.

      Also, keep supply and demand in mind too; since the USPS is only charging us the average breakeven price on postage to run their entire organization, we obviously use the service a lot more than we would if it was more expensive.

    52. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Here's what I don't get about the Political Right:

      Could you explain to me why the political left wants to take away my right to vote on a secret ballot as to whether or not my employer should be unionized? Putting that out in the open is just going to make it that much easier for either side (labor or management) to intimidate people.

      and the decline of the US manufacturing sector

      American car makers have been unionized for decades. How are they doing?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    53. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why should tax money from the wealthy go to the poor?

      It shouldn't.

      Now I'll get modded troll for having the nerve to disagree with this assumption.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    54. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      As a conservative, to me the problem isn't with private unions of workers of private companies. In truth there should be no bailouts for a company that signs labor contracts that bankrupt themselves, nor for labor unions that force such companies to go under, and themselves out of a job with ever-increasing demands - Free Market demands that both are responsible for their own demise, no matter how they shift the blame. Unions that partner with their companies for mutual benefit (or unions that take significant ownership) will always make sense for everyone.

      The problem is with public unions (Police, Fire, Teachers, Social Workers) who both get to write their own contracts and then tell their bosses (elected politicians) to approve them, or else. Have you seen the union-dictated pay-rates for federal road-construction contracts? Have you seen the pensions for your city employees? Did you know it takes government workers only 5 years of employment to be eligible for a pension at age 62? http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligibility.asp

      Even Roosevelt was wary of the power of the public union. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

      And one more thing: "Manufacturing in the US was healthiest when labor unions were healthiest."
      Correlation =\= Causation. Manufacturing and Labor were both healthy at the same time because of large postwar demand and no outside competition. Once the markets started getting tough in the 70's and 80's Labor refused to bow to the cuts Manufacturers needed to stay competitive, Manufacturers couldn't force the issue because of those meddlesome kids in congress (more public union interference in the free-market) and, in the end, both have crashed.

    55. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Zerth · · Score: 1

      I don't know which USPS you are talking about, but the United States Postal Service union contract has had a no-layoff clause for at least the last 25 years that covers over half a million postal workers(579k in March). Part time and seasonal workers are only a fraction of that.

      The only thing they can do is what they've been doing: offer early retirement bonuses or close a location in the hope that the workers don't want to be reassigned.

      Maybe they should ask the Pentagon to loan them some of those child-porn detectors, get a few out that way:)

    56. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hi there, I am a member of the "political left" (whatever the hell that may be), and I completely disagree with the first point, and somewhat agree with the second point.

      Out of curiosity, who the hell is this "political left", why is it a "political" left, and not some other flavor of left, and how is it telling us anything?

      Last I checked, the left was far more fractured and disorganized than the right, even when holding a majority in power.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    57. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Could you explain to me why the political left wants to take away my right to vote on a secret ballot as to whether or not my employer should be unionized? Putting that out in the open is just going to make it that much easier for either side (labor or management) to intimidate people.

      How is it right, out of curiosity? I'm not refuting your premise, and I might even agree with it, but the use of the term "right" is just plain goofy in this context. I don't think it is implied by the constitution, I don't really see how we can derive it from natural law, and I surely don't see it in the Bible, therefore God didn't pass the "right to anonymous vote to unionize" down to us from on-high.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    58. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Let's say I live 2 hours from the nearest civilization which is entirely possible in the US. Now say I want a pizza delivered. I would be told no way. What if I REALLY wanted a pizza? They would name a price that would make it worth their while to drive out there with a 2 hour old pizza I may not want that or I may decide to drive 2 hours into town to get the pizza myself. That is what should be allowed to happen with mail. If you live in the wilderness it shouldn't be the job of other taxpayers to make sure your mail lands on your doorstep. A PO box in the nearest post office is good enough even if it's 2 hours away.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    59. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Maybe a compromise is to deliver any standard sized mail to anywhere in your country for $1, and it won't be done at a super fast pace. Another service that they'll provide is lower cost service that will be more frequent at a lower price in the populated parts of the country.

      What would you think about that?

      Having service available to everybody isn't the same as having it at the same price and at the same priority. My suggestion would allow USPS and Canada Post to continue earning on the profitable routes, while subsidizing the black holes at a lower cost. My solution won't solve problems, but it would allow us to continue at a lower cost.

    60. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      You have a good point. The postal service could cut down on transportation costs, compared to having no delivery services of any kind.

      It would be useful to see what would happen if we took it away for the entire country. Perhaps we would buy less things, and need less delivery, which might put us into a bigger deficit of some kind. Maybe we would need to repair roads and widen them. Maybe we would need more parking spaces. Could somebody chime in here?

    61. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Another idea is to have City Mail contract according to ratios. City Mail might be able to do a great job in 1 city and its surrounding country side, but not the entire country. If City Mail took over that particular country side, then the government post could easily reduce it costs on a scalable basis. I hope that I explained it correctly.

    62. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Would you feel better if I had said "my ability to vote a secret ballot" instead?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    63. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by SagSaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you really want pig farms to move in next to you? How about a slaughterhouse?

      Farming isn't all beautiful waves of grain and rolling meadows with horses frolicking. Some things need to be out in the middle of nowhere. But those places also need to be connected to the rest of the country.


      Since a pig farm or a slaughterhouse needs to be in the middle of nowhere, why not make the pig farm or slaughter house pay the increased cost of providing mail delivery? Since nearly all pig farms and slaughterhouses need to be in the middle of nowhere, no one pig farm or slaughterhouse is put at a disadvantage by paying higher postage. The higher costs are simply passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices instead of higher postage.

      Note that I'm not suggesting that the USPS stop providing mail service to isolated areas (which would almost certainly be the effect of removing the USPS's limited monopoly), but charging most customers in rural areas the true cost of providing mail delivery. To the extent that some customers might not be able to afford the true cost of their mail delivery, it might be better to subsidize their relocation to other areas rather than continuing to subsidize services.

      --
      Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
    64. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by keithpreston · · Score: 1

      They should make those farms profitable. There are simple solutions.... If if live in a city, you get mail 5 days a week. You live just outside a city 3 days a week. You live in the middle of nowhere? 1 day a week. Top of a mountain? once a month. There is significant value to be able to deliver to every American house, so don't destroy that, just make people choose to live closer to civilizations to get mail faster.

    65. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by coaxial · · Score: 1

      I don't see why people get so upset about that. There are a lot of trade-offs to living out in the sticks, and driving to town to get mail would be a minor inconvenience compared to some of them.

      Clearly, you've never lived in the rural area. There's simply no reason to go into town, which can be miles away, every day.

    66. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is total BS; the postal service has been a money-loosing proposition for many, many years, and requires constant bailouts from the federal government, using tax dollars, which "We the People" do indeed pay. So we all should care about what contract the postal workers have. (Also, the parent comment above is riddled with BS and socialist daydreams.)

      Here is a story that shows just how wonderfully the postal service is "self-sufficient". Not. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/losing-money-isnt-the-u-s-postal-services-only-problem/19379758/

    67. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Why do you care what contract postal workers have? You don't pay for it.

      Actually, I pay for it every time I mail a letter.

      And then I usually pay again when I discover that the stamps that I bought 2 months ago are now insufficient to mail that letter.

      By the say USPS, I started to pay my bills electronically, even though I was leery of it, because keeping the fucking stamps current was so much of a hassle that I didn't want to deal with it anymore.

    68. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What do you need in the mail that comes every day? Why can't the mail delivery people send an email when something comes in with the name of who sent it, so you know you don't need to burn gas going in for a bill you can get online anyway? Or charge a slightly larger fee for rural delivery and make deliveries two or three times a week? There are lots of solutions to the problem, all with different benefits and drawbacks.

    69. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by hitmark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      didnt you just disassemble the whole competition == efficiency meme that seems to be stuck like a plague in MBA classes?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    70. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Well, then the cost to the rich must be lower than everyone else. I'm in the top 10% of wage earners, and I pay less than 10% of my income in federal income tax. Counting SS and the multiple properties I own and taxes on them and state and local income, sales, property tax and everything added up, I'm still under 25%. Only when you make up things (charging corporate taxes to those who buy from them or invest in them or charging my employer's portion of SS to me when I don't pay it) can you get me above 30%, but even with the things others make up that are taxes I don't pay, I don't even get to 35%. For those making less, they'll be paying lower. The rich certainly pay less, they have their income funneled through capital gains and trusts to keep the marginal rate at below what I pay.

    71. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by geoskd · · Score: 1

      The USPS has been self-sufficient since 1972 and have a much higher customer satisfaction rating than either UPS or FedEx. Apparently most Americans don't agree with your criticisms of the USPS

      Apparently, you're making crap up because after a short search on Google, I found: this result . See the bottom of the page. for the relevant information.

      Or maybe this link would be better.

      Maybe you should check your facts after you've invented them.

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    72. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Old+Sergeant · · Score: 1

      There is no union contract with the Postal Service that says they can never decrease their workforce. In fact the Post Service has lost tens of thousands of employees at automation and the mix of types of mail changes. If the federal government was the perfect master, that would put the unions out of business. There would be nothing for them to do. The facts, and the number of grievances brought against the government by the unions every year shows otherwise. Even it the government was the perfect master, would you deny the right for employees to get together and form a union?

    73. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      Well yes.
      Prices in remote areas should be higher.

      Something are cheaper in cities (internet). Somethings are more expensive (housing...).
      Somethings are cheaper in the country side. Somethings are more expensive.

      You pay the cost for your lifestyle.
      If you live our in the country side, maybe it should cost $20.00 for a simple letter mail.
      I don't see anything 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'explosive' about that.

    74. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by hirvonen · · Score: 1

      This is also something that is going to happen in Finland, too. Damned if I know why, there is plenty of evidence and experience from abroad that doing this will fuck things up rather nicely. I'm guessing someone is planning on starting their own delivery company or ath the very least has plans on getting paid handsomely by such a startup.

    75. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      How about a slaughterhouse?

      Used to live within a mile of a slaughterhouse. I really miss the fresh jerky and sausage... Commercial pig farms on the other hand do stink. Shame that small pig farms can't meet demand.

      Of course, charging higher prices for rural wouldn't have an effect on any large commercial operation. Their mail comes from the corporate offices.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    76. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      That all depends on whether you consider mail to be critical infrastructure or not. Twenty years ago, mail was the primary means of communication. It is not so much now. I haven't mailed anything (other than census info) in 15 years. As soon as the US Government learns about e-mail and digital signatures, I shouldn't even need mail delivery. Cell phones, Internet, and package carriers have largely replaced the post office.

      Pizza delivery, on the other hand, has never been considered critical infrastructure. Unless you are a college student.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    77. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by icebrain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many people consider me to be on the "political right", and though I'd argue I'm somewhere off at a right angle to that spectrum, I'll try to put forth an idea or two.

      Manufacturing in the US was healthiest when labor unions were healthiest

      I'd argue it the other way--unions were strongest at the time when manufacturing was strong, because of a lack of competition. The auto industry was king 40+ years ago because it had no outside competition. When strong competition from the Japanese (and later Korean) auto manufacturers arose, the unions refused to adapt, insisting on keeping the same inefficient practices versus new automated methods because the latter would eliminate some (union-held) jobs.

      I work at a US company that manufactures big expensive things. We are the best in our field and make products known and used worldwide. I'm sure you've heard of us. There are no unions on site, and no real interest among the employees (blue or white collar) in organizing. Everyone I've asked, from junior guys on the assembly line to master machinists to senior engineers, opposes the idea. Many have worked in union shops before and decided they want no part of it. And for the record, neither do I.

      Unions can be a good thing when faced with truly horrible or dangerous working conditions like those seen 100+ years ago. Today, they're still pushing for safety innovations that management resists due to a "bottom-line only" mentality. But you also see a whole bunch of stupidity coming out of them, too.

      Take Chicago, for instance. Union presence there is so strong that people participating in a trade convention are not allowed to move or plug in their own equipment. That's right, any suitcases, boxes, tables, displays, etc. that you are using in your display booth must be carried/carted in by a union worker. You can't do it yourself. Need something plugged into the wall? Gotta get a union electrician to do it. We're not talking major wiring changes in the building here, but rather the simple act of putting a regular plug into a standard AC outlet--a skill that pretty much everyone past the age of 5 has mastered. Failing to abide by this can get you fined or kicked out from the convention center and/or "accidental" damage to your equipment.

      Heavy unionization can also lead to "not-my-job-itis", where an entire worksite comes to a screeching halt because a simple mindless task needs to be done, but it's not the stated job of anyone present. I've seen an entire machine shop sit idle for two hours because the material was sitting in the back of a truck, but the guy whose job it was to get the pallet jack and move the material thirty feet to the work area was out. I've known engineering departments to be held up because the printer jammed and only the unionized repair guy was allowed to open the cover and remove the offending piece of paper.

      Sometimes, unions can be so shortsighted and narrow-minded that they drive themselves right out of a job. Some of them would rather refuse a relatively small paycut now and wind up unemployed in a year, than take a cut and still be employed in five years. Or, they'll back themselves into a corner and have to give up a lot of pay to keep a job, when they could have saved a lot of trouble had they taken a little cut earlier. (to be fair, there's a lot to be said for a management team that cuts everyone else's pay and then awards themselves bonuses, and very little of it is nice)

      Unions are also known to be very politically active, often supporting candidates that many of their members oppose on issues outside labor.

      And finally, though it's rational from the union's point of view, the treatment of "scabs" really bothers me. When a union workforce goes on strike, they're essentially saying "I don't want to work under those conditions, so I'm not going to". Someone else, maybe with some kids to feed and with very little left in his bank account, will come along and decide "well, I think that's a good d

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    78. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "self-sufficient" LMAO

      If you're idea of self-sufficient is reaching their 15 billions dollar cap for borrowing against the US Treasury. Yeah then they're self-sufficient. I don't know what us Political Right people were thinking.
      http://www.beinformedjournal.com/beinformed-journal/2010/4/12/us-postal-service-has-borrowed-billions-from-treasury-dept-m.html

    79. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Cruxus · · Score: 1

      If you drive mail into the "free market," you do realize that rural residences will be among the first casualties. Not profitable, you see.

      --
      On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
    80. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Make it a legislated part of operating a mail delivery business that mail must be delivered to all locations in the country for a price not more than X% greater than the lowest delivery price anywhere else for the same-sized parcel. Anyone can then enter the market - as long as they provide full service.

      Or allow companies to deliver in restricted areas only - but under heavy restrictions and penalties which make it financially always a better bet to expand operations, with a sudden drop to zero penalties once full coverage is achieved.

      You'd probably also want something in place to check that the full-coverage service isn't just lip service, ie delivery to Outer Woop Woop is techncially possible but the actual service is so terrible or difficult to arrange that no-one will use it.

    81. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      I think I'd believe that the USPS has a higher approval rating than UPS or FedEx because most people use USPS for sending/receiving simple envelopes that don't absolutely need to be somewhere by a certain date. For those of us who actually ship/receive packages and need them in a reasonable time frame, USPS is pretty unreliable. Especially when dealing with International Packages. I routinely order items from overseas.

      It is incredible to me, actually. There are times when a package will get sent from Germany. It will hit the States in 2 days. Of course, I don't know that because it isn't posted to the USPS "tracking" system for 7 days. Sometimes the package will make it from New York to my house 6-7 days after getting to New York. I'm currently waiting on a package (Moderately time sensitive) that will be on day 21 tomorrow. That is right. 2 days from Germany to New York. 19 days and counting from New York to Midwest United States. The scariest part about that is that if you call USPS they don't have anyone who has any clue whatsoever where the package is. On the other hand, only about 10% of these parcels get completely lost and need to be redelivered.

      When the package does arrive, it needs to be signed for. I pretty much need to watch for the Mail Carrier because they can't be bothered to ring my doorbell to try to actually deliver said package. They'll drop off a slip that I can take to the Post Office and pick up the package. Yeah, the Post Office is only a mile away but it is in a direction I rarely travel in so I have to take a special trip. All because the person delivering refuses to do his/her job. I've complained. It doesn't make a bit of difference. I really really wish all the vendors I order things from offered to send via UPS/Fed Ex. I would be willing to pay extra not to be sitting around for a fucking month wondering if my package will arrive.

    82. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      into a corporatist fascism where big corporations provide everything that the government is supposed to

      Big corporations can't exist without a government propping them up. They didn't exist in the US until JD Rockefeller bribed Congress in the 1870's to allow Standard Oil.

      You're right about the problems and symptoms, and in your forecast - but it's the root cause that needs addressing.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    83. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a certain state postal company and the monopoly was broken a few years back. We are losing money hand over fist, as we are legally required to deliver to everyone at a fixed price, and the competitors are cherry picking the profitable areas only. They also collect mail from companies and then give mail to our company for the final mile delivery - they get most of the money for minimal work, and pay us a tiny amount for most of the work. Competitors are now allowed to deliver mail for the past 4 years, but none has done so - why? Because it's not profitable, they find it cheaper to give it to us. There are unprecended massive cuts going on now and much more are planned. State postal companies from other countries are actually our competitors, they make lots of profits here and foreign countries, but they're losing lots of money in their own home countries due to the exactly the same reasons. It's hard to see how the company will survive in 20 years time if we are still forced to deliver everywhere for the same fixed cost and that we have to deliver for our competitors for next to no money. I'm personally in favour of deregulation, but for essential services like post, I think deregulation is a bad idea.

    84. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the say USPS, I started to pay my bills electronically, even though I was leery of it, because keeping the fucking stamps current was so much of a hassle that I didn't want to deal with it anymore.

      I find it very unlikely that you can't get these at your local Post Office.

    85. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      Since when do rights have to be naturally occurring or god-given? A right is something that one considers as properly justified. If one has a justified right to privacy, then we have justification to keep how we vote secret. This is seen in our government/political voting system. Therefore removing privacy and doing away with the secret ballot for Unionization votes is indeed taking away a right that currently exists.

      Of course, then we have the 9th amendment which is supposed to protect all other rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but the people have forgotten about it and it's been irreparably trampled upon.

    86. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Omestes · · Score: 1

      A right is something that one considers as properly justified. If one has a justified right to privacy, then we have justification to keep how we vote secret. This is seen in our government/political voting system. Therefore removing privacy and doing away with the secret ballot for Unionization votes is indeed taking away a right that currently exists.

      But we're not dealing with the Government, we're dealing with private organizations, who can set whatever standards they want.

      If you're in my house I can violate your "right" to free speech to my hearts desire, for example. Also, if your in my house, and I say we will "vote for dinner", should I be obligated, by force of law, to make this vote anonymous to protect some "right"?

      I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the issue at hand. Personally I think it should be anonymous, even if I am generally pro-union. But it really isn't any of my business, its (or should be) only the business of the parties involved, the unions and the workers.

      Mostly, though, I am just sick of people over-using the term "right", without any actual understanding of what a right may or may not be.

      The "right to privacy" is among the most conditional of all of the things we call rights. You don't have the right to privacy in most public situations.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    87. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously comparing eating lunch on your porch with deciding the fate of your money, life, and career? While you can tell me to shut up within your home, you have no power to actually force me to stop talking if I so choose, and therefore cannot actually infringe upon my right of free speech. You can only ask me to leave in which case I can stand on the sidewalk and continue to speak.

      Your "in my house" argument doesn't apply anyway as we _are_ talking about the government - the issue at-hand is to change the LAW in order to forcibly remove the current secret-ballot system. It could be argued that the establishment of the secret-ballot system itself established the right of a private vote. Remember that the union is a 3rd party trying to insinuate itself into the relationship between the employee and employer. It has no power unless given so. Also the relationship between employee, employer, and/or the union are not public anyway.

      I agree that some people misconstrue rights and privileges (driving is one example) but even Haliburton cannot restrict the rights of it's employees to practice religion.

    88. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Your "in my house" argument doesn't apply anyway as we _are_ talking about the government - the issue at-hand is to change the LAW in order to forcibly remove the current secret-ballot system. It could be argued that the establishment of the secret-ballot system itself established the right of a private vote.

      We are, and I fail to see why the government should be involved. Since as you put it, a union is a third party between workers and employers, and not a governmental body. We're not talking about voting in any form of political election, or any other interface with the government. This it is a private matter, just like voting to decide to eat on the patio.

      Also the relationship between employee, employer, and/or the union are not public anyway.

      This is my point. Its a private arrangement (or at least should be). If anonymous voting isn't a right in all circumstances (at my dinner party, for example), then why is it a right in this single, private, circumstance?

      If the government was trying to take away anonymous voting in actual elections, then this would be a very different story. But in the matter of private parties, I don't see the government has any right (ahem) to decide either way.

      you have no power to actually force me to stop talking if I so choose, and therefore cannot actually infringe upon my right of free speech. You can only ask me to leave in which case I can stand on the sidewalk and continue to speak.

      This is true, depending on how you look at it. I did bar your ability to speak freely at one specific location, and time. You have no right to free speech in my house, business, etc... And if you take it outside in a disruptive manner, the police can also still arrest you.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    89. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      The government became involved in the early days of unionization, when groups (employers, union leaders, and in the 1920s,Communist agitators) were accused of strong-arming employees into voting whichever way. The secret-ballot and union card system were established as a way to create a valid process.

      This is why many "average joes" are against the removal of the secret-ballot, as it will allow all groups to see how you voted - and act accordingly.

      The definition of "Right": 1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval 2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.

      Knowing now both the reasons, and that the secret-ballot has been established for decades, isn't it justified that an employee keep both the current system and his privacy?

      Your argument was that things in the public arn't private. I pointed out that this relationship was not public, and now you're arguing that because it's private there's still no right to privacy? Case law disagrees with you in that direction. If your argument is that because it's private the government should have no say, I point out that people couldn't play nice and so the government was forced to get involved. (Blame Roosevelt) I agree with your seeming ideology that the government should not get involved, but a complete hands-off approach in this situation would have likely led to mass bloodshed.

      Regarding the situation in your home. You have not, at any point, forced me to stop speaking unless you physically restrain me. If I am peacefully leaving and you hit me or otherwise force me, you yourself are committing the crime. I can remain speaking as I walk out, that is not disorderly in any way. You of course are welcome to scream and yell back at me, but beyond that and showing me the door you have no options.

    90. Re:Remove the artificial monopoly by Omestes · · Score: 1

      We might be a cross purposes here. I fully agree that unionization ballots should be anonymous and private. I just disagree with using "rights" to justify it. The more we misuse the term rights, the less meaning the term has (and thus the less important our actual rights will be).

      I have actually heard people say they have the "right" to cellphones, and software/music piracy, and other silly things, like cheap gas, internet access, etc...

      The government became involved in the early days of unionization, when groups (employers, union leaders, and in the 1920s,Communist agitators) were accused of strong-arming employees into voting whichever way. The secret-ballot and union card system were established as a way to create a valid process

      Saying that these tactics are still a threat is a much stronger way of validating the position than saying that to do otherwise would violate the "right to an anonymous ballot". Though doing otherwise (opening the ballots) could end up in other, real, rights violations as a result.

      but a complete hands-off approach in this situation would have likely led to mass bloodshed.

      This is a stronger argument than the rights based one.

      Also, sorry for the ambiguity; by private I meant "between individuals, and not society or government", like "private enterprise", which can also contain actions that can be in public, meaning "in the open". Sorry for mangling words, blame the lack of coffee and a long week of herding contractors.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  2. Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The post office is again talking about canceling Saturday delivery. To me, that is one of the best things they have going for them. Sure, UPS and FedEx will delivery on Saturdays, but for an additional cost. USPS delivers Saturday for the same cost as any other day of the week. Take no-extra-charge Saturday delivery and better rates for many pertinent deliveries than UPS or FedEx and frankly I'm not sure why more people don't ship through them.

    But if they cancel Saturdays then they aren't as advantageous.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Saturday Delivery is only meaningful to people that work Monday through Friday and are impatient about getting their toys delivered to them quick and on their day off.

    2. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by chowdahhead · · Score: 1

      If the USPS were a publicly held company, this would have happened a long time ago. They also probably would have diversified into digital services as well.

    3. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys have Saturday service? You're kidding. Canada Post dropped that ages ago. They also dropped "to-the-door" service in areas of new construction and expect you to go down the street to "super mailboxes" and pick it up there instead, and the delivery prices continue to rise. Even though the changes have been pretty drastic since they converted it from a government department to a semi-independent "crown corporation" back in the 1980s, and people grumble about the service all the time, it does have the advantage of running a slight net income every year for the last 15, and (gasp) paying taxes on the profit rather than the constant deficits it used to have.

      Of course, we're all socialists up here and the geography is different, so I don't expect something like that would ever work in the USA.

    4. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by nlawalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would be... a lot of people.

    5. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The US has alot of wide open spaces like Canada, but our population isn't bunched up as much along one main axis.

      Driving across western Canada last fall (Vancouver to Alaska) I was struck by how poor the roads are in Canada, even Highway 1 compared to the US.

      Get farther up in to BC, and they get really poor, I'd say the roads around Prince George, Dawson Creek or Fort St John were about the same quality as the rural highways across South Dakota (Highway 63 or 212)

    6. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by dasheiff · · Score: 1

      > But if they cancel Saturdays then they aren't as advantageous.
      I'd cancel Wednesday personally.

    7. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Saturday Delivery is only meaningful to people that work Monday through Friday and are impatient about getting their toys delivered to them quick and on their day off.

      Not impatient, just they don't want to be inconvenienced into having to drive to the local UPS/FedEx shipping center to pick up a package that can't be safely delivered because they aren't home during normal delivery hours. That's a lot of people.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by SpeZek · · Score: 1

      The roads are bad because highways are paid by the provinces, not the federal government. If you go for a drive in Alberta or Quebec, you'll see that their roads are a lot nicer, because the provinces have more money.

    9. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      So the Canadian Federal Government doesn't toss out the big highway dollars like the US. Interesting.

      I read about the Alaska Highway a bunch before and after I drove it. Interesting how Canada didn't want a highway up there, but the Yukon and BC always did (at least north BC).

      We stayed at Haines Junction and met a crew of bridge finishers, turned out all the new bridges being built were paid for by the US, or mostly by the US. The US had to go directly to the Yukon about it because the Canadian government didn't want to hash out the details of the treaty they signed with the US over highway improvements.

      Being in the US, I always thought of Canada as a tighter federation of states than the US was. Seems in some regards to be looser.

    10. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by SpeZek · · Score: 1

      Canada is a bit looser than the US. Each province is basically responsible for its own affairs; medical, educational, infrastructure, etc. The federal gov't handles what a federal gov't is supposed to handle; foreign affairs, currency, debt, federal law, and the like. Where the US elects one leader to make big decisions, we elect leaders of our districts who then determine the federal leader. Everything is very piecemeal.
      It's rather ironic, considering that Canada was founded on the principal of having a very centralized government, whereas the US was founded on having a very decentralized government, yet here we are in 2010 -- the US becoming more and more centralized, and Canada one of the most decentralized federations in the world.

    11. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      Not impatient, just they don't want to be inconvenienced into having to drive to the local UPS/FedEx shipping center to pick up a package that can't be safely delivered because they aren't home during normal delivery hours. That's a lot of people.

      Or they these distribution centers are closed by the time people get off work and they are unable to take time off from work.

      When ever I ran into this problem, I found that USPS/FedEx was closed on the weekend. I was fucked.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    12. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      In some ways the US is becoming more centralized (intelligence, law enforcement, taxes), but in other ways it's reverting to a decentralized system.

      The Department of Veterans affairs is going to let people in V.A. treatment use marijuana if the state law allows it. Thats a huge jump away from the old model of "if the Justice Department doesn't like it, it's not allowed". States are moving back to a states-rights point of view about gay marriage, immigration checks.

      And those Teabaggers are really clamoring for decentralization.

      I'm here in Alaska now and it feels like a place very far removed from a centralized United States, even with the huge military bases here in town (Anchorage), even the sign at the fort says - United States Army Alaska.

    13. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

      Fedex delivers on Saturday here, without extra cost, but UPS does not, regardless.

      I get the impression Fedex is trying to compete.

    14. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Then there's the weather. Haven't you noticed in the US how the northern states get more highway money, but the southern states persist in having nicer rides. It's the climate, not the money. Of course, our air conditioning bills are higher.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    15. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      USPS is also one of the most economical ways to ship internationally.

      Sure you could ship UPS, if you want to ding the recipient with addicitional fees that range anywhere from 30-200% the declared cost (plus taxes).

      At least FedEx dings you $25 plus taxes, so anything shipped via FedEx better be expensive to justify it.

      USPS, I get billed $5 or $8, depending on whether it was regular priority mail or express mail.

      I think the only other company able to do it so cheap is DHL, but I think they've left the US.

      I never buy from stores that ship via UPS - it's not worth it, and even the importer that charges 100% markup can be cheaper than buying direct. FedEx I reserve for expensive items, and USPS all the way for everything else.

    16. Re:Trying to destroy one of their best traits... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How do you ship USPS internationally for $5? The cheapest I can find is the small flat rate for about $13 or medium for about $40.

  3. City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by Nutria · · Score: 4, Interesting

    realize this, but there's still a whole lot of people who live out in the country and small rural towns where the population density isn't high enough for UPS, FedEx and broadband to be profitable enough to serve these citizens.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      realize this, but there's still a whole lot of people who live out in the country and small rural towns where the population density isn't high enough for UPS, FedEx and broadband to be profitable enough to serve these citizens.

      True enough, but then you have to frame the argument as a social issue. Is it a desirable social end for people in rural areas to have services that cannot be developed economically by the 'regular' market? Traditionally (pretty much since the inception of the US) it was felt that subsidizing mail to everyone was worth the cost as it help expand the country and thus the market. In the 1930's the rural electrification expanded AC power to the hinterlands, again as an effort to improve the economy of these areas (and as part of the New Deal).

      So the argument really boils down to whether or not it is worth it in a societal sense to subsidize postal service for rural populations. Of course, then you get to the literally hundreds of cross subsidies that the US (and likely every other government) gives for everything from peanuts to gasoline.

      Then my eyes glaze over and my head asplode.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by tronbradia · · Score: 1

      City dwellers and suburbanites might not realize this, but there's still a whole lot of people who live out in the country and small rural towns where the population density isn't high enough for UPS, FedEx and broadband to be profitable enough to serve these citizens.

      Small rural towns could just contract out to Fedex to make deliveries, I'm sure there's a price they would accept to do it. We live in a capitalist society and that generally means that enough money will buy anything. I'm sure private industry could serve small towns more effectively and at lower expense than a bureaucratic dinosaur like the USPS can, and we as a country are already paying USPS to do it. So it's not really a matter of small towns not being able to get service. It's a matter of small towns wanting the rest of the country to pay for that service.

      And as someone who lives in the 'rest of the country', I don't really see why, if small towns want something, they shouldn't have to pay for it. (Disclaimer, I have no use for first class mail and don't even want to subsidize my own, much less anybody else's).

    3. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To my mind, that's just the trade-off you get in exchange for the advantages of living out in the middle of nowhere...

      You get things like a larger house on a much larger lot, easy access to lakes, forests or whatever, peace and quiet, a lower crime rate, cleaner air, less traffic, and so on. I get broadband, culture, good restaurants, a nightlife, public transit, and other such services.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    4. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I've never had UPS or FedEx say they can't deliver a package. One thing they do is hand it off to their competitor, that might be cheaper to do than to handle the package themselves. They also trade packages when one or the other has a glut somewhere, I guess they probably find it cheaper to trade services than to build excess capacity to handle the busy times.

      Another thing I've seen them do is charge a slightly higher fee for delivery to remote destinations, the worst of which that I've found was maybe $3 a package, not too bad in my opinion.

    5. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      depends do you want the food that those rural area's produce? Whether it be meat, or corn, or even strawberries, do you want the items produced transported to your city?

      I think that is a fair trade off The city supports the advancement of the rural areas, while the city gets to eat, and live. Because when was the last time you saw a high rise farm?

      The real problem with the USPS isn't the "last mile" where local deliveries and people actually deliver mail. That is usually pretty efficient. No it's their back end system. I have seen first class mail with proper labeling take anywhere from 2 days to 3 weeks to go 90 miles between two small cities.(Once i received a card from my grandmother 22 days after my birthday, I figured she forgot until I looked the postage mark the post office puts on mail and realized she sent it 3 days before my birthday) . Combine that with Post office tracking to track your packages. However that only seems to update it once or twice a week, as I can never actually track my package until after it arrives. And when you send a letter/package you never know when it will actually arrive.

      Now occasional misplaced items happen(I watched UPS tracking on two boxes sent from the same source, go through two different cities with different delivery days. ) However with the post office you don't know if it will actually arrive. combine with random thievery(gift cards being stolen out of letters?) And overall trust in the system goes down.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Something I forgot to mention is that it's tough to pay extra to a telco or cable company to extend service to an area they decide isn't worth it. I think I offered $10,000 to the local cable company to put in more equipment or lay cable, I was only a mile outside their regular grid and told there just wasn't a process for that, they just wouldn't give me a price.

      For a couple years, I was paying quite a lot just so I can get a T1 line, it was $450/mo at the time. I had hoped to use various wireless devices to sell high speed internet to the neighbors. There were two takers in WiFi range, given proper antennas. I loaned one subscriber a huge 24" ft dish for 2 mile range, the guy with the dish ended up getting cable because the company decided to offer service in his direction, though still not my direction. I ended up giving up because the equipment I had wasn't reliable enough to push the service to a wider base, and I didn't have the patience or money to invest in better equipment.

    7. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's tough to pay extra to a telco or cable company to extend service to an area they decide isn't worth it.

      But, but, but... the Free Market is the be all and end all! It's perfect!

      told there just wasn't a process for that, they just wouldn't give me a price.

      This is the down-side of the computerized business: greatly reduced flexibility.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    8. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      That's not because of computerized business. It's about big business. When a business owner has a direct vested interest in the profitability of the business, they can be assured to make good decisions. When all of the money funnels back to someone who doesn't want any of their line people taking any share of the profits, the line-people are relegated to process men who aren't allowed to decide things (lest they embezzle everything). It's not a sign of computerized business, but big corporations.

    9. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      When all of the money funnels back to someone who doesn't want any of their line people taking any share of the profits,

      Your comment reeks of dogma.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    10. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying when you own the business, you don't need to worry about the business owner embezzling. The less of the overall business each person owns, the less individual success each person sees from group success. Hence, you start having to put up rules to counteract corruption.

      The bigger the organization, the more rules have to go up to keep more people from finding creative ways of ripping everyone off. By the time you get to the size of most telcos, very few people have the power to make any decisions for new situations. Otherwise the opportunity for embezzlement is too great.

      And, of course, the goal of any commercial organization is to make as much money as possible. This means keeping labor costs low. Most of the people I've interacted with from major telcos were paid less than they were worth.

      So there is pressure from both sides. I don't mean to sound dogmatic about it. This is just how I've seen the world work. Keep labor costs low by setting up strict regulations about who can do what, making humans interchangeable and less likely to cheat. People with various amounts of education, either struggling to keep up or with enough time and thought to break the rules. Or, of course, the large swath of the middle that's doing just fine. But they don't cause problems

      Sometimes I'm a bit pessimistic about people.

    11. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying when you own the business, you don't need to worry about the business owner embezzling.

      You've got to be kidding!! Haven't you ever heard of a "second set of books"?

      Don't /Enron/ and /Worldcom/ mean anything to you?

      Keep labor costs low by setting up strict regulations about who can do what, making humans interchangeable and less likely to cheat.

      I, a Senior DBA in a large IT organization, see it as a "fear reaction" to customers (government organizations that we have contracts with) and auditors. Bureaucracy as defense.

      Surely, though, the bean counters are also using it for their own nefarious purposes...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    12. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the county I live in, in fare West Texas, is larger than the state of Connecticut, but has less than 12,000 residents. It is the post office that does not deliver to our houses in the country. Fedex and UPS both go out of their way to deliver to us at home.

    13. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Interesting. In the rural LA parish where my mother lives, FedEx/UPS don't go outside the few towns. They hand off to the USPS any packages that must go to the rural routes.

      Since all the mail must be delivered every day, maybe your county would require too many rural carriers.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    14. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      but there's still a whole lot of people who live out in the country and small rural towns where the population density isn't high enough for UPS, FedEx and broadband to be profitable enough to serve these citizens.

      I still have family that lives in a small rural town. Population of about 4000, and the next town over (about 30,000 population) is a 2 hour drive. They installed fiber about 5 years ago. My grandmother has faster Internet than I can get in the city. UPS also has little problem delivering. Granted, 2-day delivery is more like 7-day. However, they do deliver. I have to wonder how many small towns still fit your description.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    15. Re:City dwellers and suburbanites might not... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      My mother doesn't live in a small town. She lives 10 miles outside a small town.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. not actually a monopoly by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative

    the artificial monopoly congress created for the USPS making it so they are the only ones that can deliver first-class mail

    The post office doesn't actually have such a monopoly. The post office is the only company that can deliver to your mailbox, but you are free to put up a mailbox outside your house for UPS, FedEx, or any other service you want. Other companies can deliver as much mail as they want, they just can't use the USPS mail boxes. Other companies are also free to deliver any amount of mail or packages to your door in any way they want, any time they want.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:not actually a monopoly by Peach+Rings · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not true, it's illegal for UPS and FedEx to deliver first class mail (normal priority letters in an envelope). The Postal Inspection Service investigates and aggressively prosecutes companies for sending normal mail through other carriers. I remember some story from awhile back where a big corporation was fined a large sum when the postal service found out that the "high priority mail" they were sending through a carrier was just normal priority.

    2. Re:not actually a monopoly by crmarvin42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd like a citation for that. I send mail via FedEx all the time for work. I don't send personal correspondence that way, but that's because the USPS is cheaper for a simple letter than FedEx is (even with the recent stamp hikes) and I'm not usually worried about delivery time. If FedEx became the cheaper way to mail photo's of my daughter to her grandparents, then I'd probaby take that route. Are you saying that it is illegal for FedEx to deliver mail that isn't next day delivery somehow?

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:not actually a monopoly by XanC · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to Wikipedia:

      Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.

    4. Re:not actually a monopoly by Main+Gauche · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last edited by: "GP, over on Slashdot. Nah-nah, told ya so!".

    5. Re:not actually a monopoly by sir1real · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with the Constitution. Congress passed a law back in the mid 1800s which says no one other than the USPS can deliver first class mail for less than 5 dollars a unit. This is what gives the USPS a effective monopoly over the mail.

    6. Re:not actually a monopoly by XanC · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course; I guess the key phrase in the Wiki summary is:

      "The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail."

      But unfortunately, that interpretation being wrong doesn't change anything.

    7. Re:not actually a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >the artificial monopoly congress created for the USPS making it so they are the only ones that can deliver first-class mail

      The post office doesn't actually have such a monopoly. The post office is the only company that can deliver to your mailbox, but you are free to put up a mailbox outside your house for UPS, FedEx, or any other service you want. Other companies can deliver as much mail as they want, they just can't use the USPS mail boxes. Other companies are also free to deliver any amount of mail or packages to your door in any way they want, any time they want.

      It's actually pretty easy to search the US Post Office website. Let's see the first hit for "monopoly" here: http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2008/pr08_106.htm

      Obligations of the USO include uniform prices, quality of service, access to services, and six-day delivery to every part of the country. To assure financial support for these obligations, the postal monopoly provides the Postal Service the exclusive right to deliver letters and restricts mailbox access solely for mail. Therefore, the USO and postal monopoly are inextricably linked. The report supports that eliminating or reducing either aspect of the monopoly "would have a devastating impact on the ability ... to provide the affordable universal service that the country values so highly." Relaxing access to the mailbox would also pose security concerns, increase delivery costs, and hurt customer service.

      Wait -- fluke! Two years old! Let's check another one (darn, a PDF): http://www.usps.com/postallaw/_pdf/UniversalServiceandPostalMonopolyHistory.pdf

      Protecting postal revenue: the origins of the Private Express Statutes
      The group of federal laws known collectively as the Private Express Statutes gives the United States Postal Service a monopoly over the carriage of letter-mail. This monopoly predates the United States Postal Service - it predates even the United States. It was carried over from the colonial postal system, established in North America by the British before the American Revolution. But whereas the British Crown Post hoped to profit by its mail monopoly and return its profit to Great Britain, the Founding Fathers hoped to protect postal revenues to fund and expand the mail system, which they deemed as essential to nationhood.

      But wait, there is an exception!

      In 1979, under pressure from mailers, competitors, and some members of Congress, the Postal Service suspended the prohibition of private delivery of extremely urgent letters. Letters were considered to be extremely urgent if they met strict delivery standards or if their postage cost the greater of either twice the United States Post Office going First-Class or "priority mail" rate or at least three dollars.67 The regulations were also amended to clarify the terms "letter," "packet," "person," and "identical printed letters."

      In 1980, the regulations were amended as follows:
      --by removing certain restrictions from the existing exemption for matter shipped by a printer to a person using such matter as his letters;
      --by further defining "letter," "book" or "catalog" under the existing exemptions, as well as providing an exemption for advertisements accompanying addressed material or periodicals; and,
      --by allowing private carriage of letters with prepaid postage other than by means previously established, provided that these alternative means were specified in a written agreement with the Postal Service.

      The last major change came on September 19, 1986, when, at the urging of American businesses and at the direct request of President Ronald Reagan, the Postal Service exempted international remailing from the postal monopoly. The new rule allowed "the uninterrupted carriage of letters from a point with

    8. Re:not actually a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.

      So you mean putting a piece in an envelope and having it delivered overnight--like can be done with FedEx--is illegal?

    9. Re:not actually a monopoly by Chaostrophy · · Score: 1

      And the post office has sued companies and won (read it in the Wall Street Journal years ago, no cite handy), you may only use non USPS carriers for letter that require an immediate response, otherwise, you are violating their monopoly.

      --
      Plato seems wrong to me today
    10. Re:not actually a monopoly by PPH · · Score: 1

      The post office is the only company that can deliver to your mailbox,

      My solution: I don't have a USPS mailbox.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:not actually a monopoly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail.

      This is the part of your statement that requires a citation, XanC. The sole power to establish "post offices" has not stopped UPS and FedEx from setting up offices all across the US.

      There is no law that prevents UPS or FedEx from delivering letters in envelopes. They just don't see sufficient profit margin in doing so. They'll gladly deliver a sheet of paper in an envelope for you, but they'll charge a few bucks for it instead of > fifty cents.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:not actually a monopoly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And the post office has sued companies and won (read it in the Wall Street Journal years ago, no cite handy), you may only use non USPS carriers for letter that require an immediate response, otherwise, you are violating their monopoly

      You make a statement like that but no cite is "handy"?

      That's handy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:not actually a monopoly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And yet, FedEx and UPS will gladly deliver a sheet of paper in an envelope for you without requiring an immediate response.

      They just can't use mailboxes. But there's no law saying I can't put up a box on my lawn for UPS or FedEx.

      And what you're saying this "monopoly" if it ever existed, has not existed for the last thirty years.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:not actually a monopoly by XanC · · Score: 3, Informative
    15. Re:not actually a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like a citation for that. I send mail via FedEx all the time for work. I don't send personal correspondence that way, but that's because the USPS is cheaper for a simple letter than FedEx is (even with the recent stamp hikes) and I'm not usually worried about delivery time. If FedEx became the cheaper way to mail photo's of my daughter to her grandparents, then I'd probaby take that route. Are you saying that it is illegal for FedEx to deliver mail that isn't next day delivery somehow?

      http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/14/business/private-couriers-and-postal-service-slug-it-out.html

    16. Re:not actually a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both interesting links, thanks.

      I wonder if PopeRatzo considers that sufficient proof. He has declared several times in this thread that there is no such thing as a postal monopoly. I'd be curious to see is he has any proof to support that assertion.

    17. Re:not actually a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post office is the only company that can deliver to your mailbox

      So, all that junk mail I receive is either imaginary or illegal then? I don't think this is strictly correct.

    18. Re:not actually a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really thing UPS and FedEx are interested in delivering envelopes @ 44 cents each?

    19. Re:not actually a monopoly by owski · · Score: 2, Informative
    20. Re:not actually a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people don't realize this, but the USPS has contracts with FedEx, UPS and many commercial airline carriers to move mail around the world using their networks. Crates of mail and packages may be tendered to any of these entities by the USPS and flown to a destination only to be disassembled and distributed to its intended receiver. Your priority package you paid the USPS to deliver may actually have flown on a FedEx, UPS or commercial carrier plane, they get their cut of the action, and the customer is none the wiser.

  5. Where USPS falls short by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay, here is where USPS falls short compared to FedEx and UPS:

    * ridiculous restrictions on what can be shipped
    * Severely under-staffed at practically every location
    * Inflexible pickup policies
    * Bankers' hours
    * Poor package tracking (often won't indicate an item has shipped until days after it arrived at destination)
    * No guarantees. "Priority" shipping "may be 2-3 days" but then again it might take a week

    If I call FedEx I can get a small shipment picked up usually within an hour, often as late as 6:30 or 7. A large shipment is a little different but even if I need to ship half a ton or a ton worth of goods, I can get a pickup the same day.

    UPS is a little less flexible.

    I used to have a UPS vs. FedEx comparison on my web site. It went something like this:

    FedEx
      * if the driver bothers to find you, the package will be delivered in one piece
      * If they bother to find you, the package will arrive on time
      * Your package will be handled carefully
      * You deliveryperson is probably an ex con
      * Your FedEx air driver can't pick up ground packages

    UPS
      * The driver will always find you, but the package might be beat up
      * Your package might sit at the local UPS hub or UPS center a day or two before going out for delivery
      * Your package will have fallen off a conveyor belt 30' onto the concrete floor because UPS insists on running 60,000-120,000 packages over four hours through a conveyor system designed to handle maybe 30,000 packages over four hours
      * your deliveryperson is probably an ex con
      * Your UPS ground or UPS air driver can pick up either air or ground packages

    UPS used to be excellent - going public has really hurt them a lot. It seemed middle management cared a lot more when they were owner-operated so their net wealth had a lot more to do with how they performed than what their perceived market value is. Now that market cap drives managements' personal profits, they have little regard for customer service.

    But honestly, I don't expect the USPS can ever do any better than either of them. USPS already does a craptacular job that makes either UPS or FedEx look good.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Where USPS falls short by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Okay I don't know where you do your shipping but we don't have any of the problems you seem to have with UPS.
      We have had the same driver for years. Very nice gentleman and I doubt he is an ex-con.
      We ship a LOT.
      And have not had many damaged packages at all.

      We are using the US postal service more now because they are cheaper and the service has been okay.
      If it isn't high priority it goes USPS.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Where USPS falls short by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I don't get the ex-con bit, is someone with a criminal conviction not supposed to have a job?

    3. Re:Where USPS falls short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, here is where USPS falls short compared to FedEx and UPS:

      * ridiculous restrictions on what can be shipped
      * Severely under-staffed at practically every location
      * Inflexible pickup policies
      * Bankers' hours
      * Poor package tracking (often won't indicate an item has shipped until days after it arrived at destination)
      * No guarantees. "Priority" shipping "may be 2-3 days" but then again it might take a week

      You should take a look at Canada Post for a bit of inspiration, as over the last few years they've offered decent services to all of the problems you've listed. They still have a ways to go in some areas (they're spending a lot on automation as the baby boomers retire), but things are pretty good.

      The President of C.P. has now accepted a job at British Post where she'll probably try to fix things up as well.

    4. Re:Where USPS falls short by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      We have had the same driver for years. Very nice gentleman and I doubt he is an ex-con.
      We ship a LOT.

      Is that shipping from a business? Perhaps they put the good service crew into business areas?

    5. Re:Where USPS falls short by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      The President of C.P. has now accepted a job at British Post where she'll probably try to fix things up as well.

      And the British postmen will start to append an eh to sentences.

    6. Re:Where USPS falls short by SpeZek · · Score: 1

      I'd trust CP more than UPS any day of the week.

      I've had a gift sent to me through UPS 3 times. 3 times it ended up at the wrong address. 3 times UPS would not claim responsibility, since it was signed for (by someone other than me, obviously).

      Every time I've sent or received through CP, the package or letter has arrived in perfect condition, on time (or early), and the delivery people don't sign for it and leave it on the doorstep to be stolen or just don't care that John Doe signs for my stuff.

    7. Re:Where USPS falls short by kimvette · · Score: 1

      What are you talking aboot?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    8. Re:Where USPS falls short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FedEx

          * If the address on the package is correct and not to a PO Box, I will find you.
          * I will get you your package on time, unless our freight is late from the airport. I have no control over this.
          * Yes your package will be handled carefully, unless the 'ramp-rats' (airport grunts) that make $8 an hour have had a bad day.
          * Neither myself, nor any of my co-workers are ex cons. Thank you.
          * Correct Express cannot process Ground packages. Ground was originally a company called RPS. Those guys are Union, Express is not.
      I have no means of processing their freight nor do I wish to take money out of their pockets. I work hourly, they work "piecework" (on a volume basis).

      Btw, most if not all of USPS "Priority Mail" packages fly on FedEx planes. This is part of a deal struck with them, which is why you see FedEx drop boxes at the Post Office.

    9. Re:Where USPS falls short by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't get the ex-con bit, is someone with a criminal conviction not supposed to have a job?

      No, but should they have a job that involves the handling of all manner of expensive items, including firearms?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Where USPS falls short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree the post office sucks.

      First of all, there is no reason it took 7 weeks for them to change the lock on my mailbox and get me the key at my last apartment (August 2008).

      Last fall, I received a certified letter where my wife watched the post man place the notice that no one was home in the mail box from the front door. Then, it took him three days to return it to the post office to where I could pick it up. The person at the counter was shocked and said I should call the post master who promptly told me to go fuck myself.

      Let me tell you, if I wasn't required to use them there is no way I would use the post office.

    11. Re:Where USPS falls short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the libtards have mod points tonight.

    12. Re:Where USPS falls short by mimecine · · Score: 1

      I must disagree! Me and my wife runs a shop in Manhattan where we also sell over the internet. We have gone through FedEx, UPS and DHL over the years and with all of them there was always problems: Packages got lost, damaged or got returned quite regularly. And every other months it seemed their invoices were padded - having us spend hours with the representatives to get them to correct their mistakes. We still use DHL for imports, and this past spring my poor wife has spent countless hours being bounced by our sales agent and their billing department to rectify two wrong bills (it was $50 off, but it's really the principle) - every time we talked to the sales agent, he promised the problem was fixed - even when in conference call with DHL's accounting. Still, their invoice got sent to collection in three separate instances - the same invoice! The last time, they even sent fresh invoices within their due dates to collection! DHL also have a buggy web api for shipping. Calculations in their api differed quite a bit from their browser web interface - some %'s or so more expensive for packages where dimensional weight was applied when booked through the api rather than their website. Even when I was put in contact with their developer group and was able to pinpoint the problem and even came up with the likely wrong calculation they were doing, they refused to rectify it. The reason they gave me: not breaking existing behavior.... It's a shit company. We reluctantly started using USPS a year ago, and I must say everything has went smooth since. One lost package in a year. Friendly staff picking up. Very predictable bills since it's all prepaid. Tracking within U.S. has always worked great for us. Sure, USPS has it's shortcomings, but using them for our outgoing packages was one of the best moves our little shop has done...

    13. Re:Where USPS falls short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Okay, here is where USPS falls short compared to FedEx and UPS:"

      "* ridiculous restrictions on what can be shipped" ---- (billions of dollars of equipment exist that handle packages and letters of certain sizes. sorry. that's reality)
      "* Severely under-staffed at practically every location" ---- (your fault. cost complaints reacted to.)
      "* Inflexible pickup policies" ---- (how about saturday and tuesday off too. cost complaints)
      "* Bankers' hours" ---- (cost complaints)
      "* Poor package tracking (often won't indicate an item has shipped until days after it arrived at destination)" ---- (cost complaints. you can have what you will pay for. no free lunch. equipment and structure cost)
      "* No guarantees. "Priority" shipping "may be 2-3 days" but then again it might take a week" ---- (you can have it all. just pay for it)

      "If I call FedEx I can get a small shipment picked up usually within an hour, often as late as 6:30 or 7. A large shipment is a little different but even if I need to ship half a ton or a ton worth of goods, I can get a pickup the same day". ---- (yes you can. and they deliver through the postal service where they don't deliver themselves, which is almost everywhere. I see the FedEx trucks pulling into our Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center every day to disgorge their packages into the USPS system.)

    14. Re:Where USPS falls short by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes but we I have not had any issues with UPS at all. We get two stops a day at my office. Maybe it is where you live vs the service. Or just your perception of the people. I am not sure how you can look at someone and say that they are an ex con.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  6. Address people, not houses by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The thing that I really hate about traditional mail is that it goes to my house, not to me. When I move house, I have to (pay to) set up a redirection and then stuff where people got the address slightly wrong needs forwarding manually. Big companies can set up a P/O Box that forwards to their physical location. Why not to this for everyone? In the UK, the post code and house name or number are enough to uniquely identify every house in the country. Why not make the system identify people by a short code (or something like a domain name) instead? That way, when I move house, I don't need to tell people my new address unless they are actually visiting me - people who are just writing to me can keep using the old address.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Address people, not houses by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 1

      You would have to tell them that you moved in order for this system to work, though.

    2. Re:Address people, not houses by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Pay? It's a buck to do it online with the USPS.

      Free in the Post Office.

    3. Re:Address people, not houses by rockNme2349 · · Score: 1

      So you tell the PO that you moved, not everyone you know that you moved.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    4. Re:Address people, not houses by cgenman · · Score: 1

      I've been wanting this for years here in the US. Some sort of unique identifier to a person, rather than a physical location. Decode the setup, and forward the mail on its merry way.

      Move from one location to another (updating the USPS) and the mail follows you. It makes total sense, and would help keep the volume of mail up. The unique identifiers could be chosen in such a way to simplify OCR for poor handwriting and help cut back on human intervention costs.

    5. Re:Address people, not houses by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

      I submitted a suggestion years ago that instead of using ZIP codes, we use the same coordinate system that Army artillery uses to fire on a target. The system exists, and it's accurate enough to hit a target.

      Besides, adopting this system would provide a stream of candidates for postal jobs. As soon as an artilleryman left the army, he or she could get a job at the local post office, delivering mail.

      For some reason, this idea was completely ignored by the post office.

    6. Re:Address people, not houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he lives in the UK. Post redirection is more expensive here, from £7.64 for 1 month up to £39.99 for a year (renewable for two further years).

  7. Privatize by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That at least will hopefully improve the efficiency though it won't fix the underlying problem which is that the snail mail is dying. Btw, a question. did anybody else notice the service quality dropping recently. I've had more of my mail not delivered (when I know it was sent) and other people's mail mistakenly delivered to my mailbox in the last year than in my entire life. Could be just my mailman I guess.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:Privatize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny that you mention this. About a week ago, I started receiving random pieces of mail for neighbors just one or two houses down the street.

    2. Re:Privatize by couchslug · · Score: 1

      This is where a national broadband investment would pay off. When we can get rid of mail for communication, that will slash the amount of time and energy involved in making and transporting dead trees.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Privatize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an effort to get bigger bonuses, management is (mis) "adjusting" routes twice a year in many places. In the past, you'd have the same mailman for years. Now you are lucky if it's 6 months.

      You'd be surprised at how poorly mail is addressed. Add that to having to retrain the clerks for the new sorting scheme every 6 months then throw in new hires and it's not a very stable delivery environment.

      Generally, the fault for mis-delivered mail is when a carrier with his own route is thrown onto a route he doesn't know anything about after he's brain-dead and tired from 8 hours of work already. Or the above-mentioned new hires who aren't familiar with the route.

      The regular carrier "shouldn't" make more than a tiny number of errors in a normal day of delivering thousands of pieces of mail. Some even have over a thousand possible deliveries on residential routes - each having several people living there - while also trying to remember all the people who have moved in the past 18 months. UPS doesn't have to worry about all that. If they can't deliver to someone, they let USPS attempt to find them by mailing a card.

      Business routes are easy. High volume and few customers. That's why UPS likes them.

    4. Re:Privatize by cgenman · · Score: 1

      For privitizing to improve efficiency, you'd have to show that overhead from poor mail service management is greater than the profittaking that private companies necessarily must indulge upon. Or rather, you'e have to put up a good argument for why the mess that is the UPS and FedEx is about 50% more efficient than the mess that is the USPS.

    5. Re:Privatize by cybernanga · · Score: 1

      The day there is no physical mail will be a very sad day indeed.

      I don't use it often, but when I do, it has advantages that email will never match.

      You can't email greetings cards (No, eCards don't cut it)
      You can't email cash (Kids don't have bank accounts, and they like to actually hold their money)

      Ever received a letter from a loved one? Did you notice how the handwriting, and smell of the paper (and possibly perfume) have an effect that email will never be able to reproduce?

      Additionally, you can mail keys, credit cards, watches, coins, cd/dvd's and many other items

      --
      www.Buy-Proxy.com - A "buyer-driven" global marketplace.
  8. radical changes by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I translate that into 'internet email tax' or 'online bill pay tax'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:radical changes by Zekolas · · Score: 1

      How exactly could they "Tax" email? Who would pay the tax, the person sending or receiving? Also how would they, you do not need to enter in a SS#/credit card #, street address for an email account. Also what about email accounts that are operated outside the US? What would stop every one signing up for a Canadian email account that is not taxed? The fact is there is NO way anyone could tax email, and if any one thinks the US government can, well they really do not understand how the internet actually works.

    2. Re:radical changes by XanC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Easy, you just mandate an extra $5/month charge to every ISP bill. I'm sure the politicians believe it's their right to do so.

    3. Re:radical changes by Zekolas · · Score: 1

      Good point, this would be the only way they could do this, but it would not be so much of an email tax as a Internet tax.

    4. Re:radical changes by XanC · · Score: 1

      Taxing too much has never stopped them before. :-)

    5. Re:radical changes by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      You must be new to the IT world. Its not hard at all to track email sent thru a 'captive' email server. Most enterprise level email servers support tracking and billing. I'm sure if pushed even google, yahoo, hotmail, and similar web email services could do it.

      Every email you send thru the system, you get a charge tacked on that goes to the USPS ( well, really the government, they will give the USPS a % of that. )

      As far as spam is concerned, it's not about what you receive, its what you send.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:radical changes by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      How exactly could they "Tax" email? Who would pay the tax, the person sending or receiving?

      The answer to you second question is, yes. That is the government would charge both. As to how they would do it, they would require every email provider to keep track of how many emails are sent and received by each account and charge those accounts the appropriate amount. It would mean the end of free email services like gmail, yahoo, etc.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:radical changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already get charged an extra "processing" fee for paying my bills online by one of my debtors.

  9. Don't kill the USPS! by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some of us need an alternative to PayPal... Online only works for those who carry the mark of the beast (have a bank, or PayPal account, or a credit card)

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Don't kill the USPS! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Buy a pay-as-you-go credit card and use that. Postage is high enough you'll likely save money.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Don't kill the USPS! by rbphilip · · Score: 1

      who doesn't have a bank account or a credit card?

    3. Re:Don't kill the USPS! by cgenman · · Score: 1

      You mail cash?

    4. Re:Don't kill the USPS! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      You trying to be funny?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  10. The political left isn't saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is what you are deciding to say the political left is saying.

    Back in the real world we have the whole sorry saga of workers exploited as long as the government does not intervene or the workers get fed up and go , er, postal.

    And we also have branches of government that are independent from each other (labour tribunals are a common feature in modern, democratic countries) so the apparent contradiction you are trying to point out, actually is not a given, unless you have a political system that is particularly incompetent, corrupt, or both.

  11. Deficits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you could claim that decreased usage in a country of the size of the US makes it unprofitable, but in truth it just means that in the worst case they could revert to the system they had in 1980 or 1970 when they were doing fine with less users. So why is there a problem?

  12. USPS by codepunk · · Score: 1

    USPS will never recover and or be profitable, their labor and benefits costs are way too high.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We think their business model is fine and will lead to prosperity.

      Sincerely,

      US Auto Makers

    2. Re:USPS by value_added · · Score: 2, Interesting

      USPS will never recover and or be profitable, their labor and benefits costs are way too high.

      Should we care about profitability and labour/benefit costs?

      Seems to me if someone has a good job with real job security and some kind of pension thrown into the bargain, we should pause for a moment and realise that most of us will never haver anything like it, and we should be envious.

      Schoolteachers, firefighters, postmen, these are the kinds of people that represent the middle class (or what's left of it). Personally, I don't give a damn if the departments they fall under aren't run as efficiently as possible, just so as long as they meet a "mostly works" criteria.

  13. Privatize-Spamersize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That at least will hopefully improve the efficiency though it won't fix the underlying problem which is that the snail mail is dying.

    You better hope that bulk mail doesn't die, or transmitting that electronically will increase the amount of spam people get.

  14. Hybrid mail? by MelodicMotives · · Score: 1

    Other countries have been trialing technology that allows incoming mail to be scanned and transmitted electronically to the recipient. This seems like a great area for USPS to move towards, and would help them taper off residential delivery as the number of people who still demand dead trees in their mailbox dwindles.

    1. Re:Hybrid mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up!

    2. Re:Hybrid mail? by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Or the sending party could just deliver it to you electronically, saving a lot of extra work and costs from initially mailing it to a third party to digitize.

    3. Re:Hybrid mail? by MelodicMotives · · Score: 1

      If the sending party is grandma, or perhaps they are located in a rural part of the country, then they probably aren't capable of doing that at the moment.

  15. Just now?!? by alangerow · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Company realizes it needs to think about the future and plan for it. News at 11.

  16. Time for the USPS to go away by Cthobs · · Score: 1

    Sell it to FedEx or UPS. Allow them to cut letter deliveries to MWF. Get rid of the Postal Inspectors. Get rid of the bloated, over paid bureaucracy.

  17. Competitiveness by Manos_Of_Fate · · Score: 1

    USPS also needs to work on their shipping prices. My girlfriend shipped a small (~2 lb) package recently, and USPS grounds would have cost her $20. OnTrac was $10 for next day, and it arrived at 10:30 in the morning. Charging more money for things is not necessarily a good way to make more money off of them.

    --
    Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
    1. Re:Competitiveness by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      Really?

      'Cause a medium flat rate box (11" x 8-1/2" x 5-1/2") shipped from Illinois to Texas (I figured this wold be an average distance) is $10.70 shipped Priority Mail.

    2. Re:Competitiveness by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      This is either a lie or something isn't being told about it. They have a TON of 'flat rate' boxes. The boxes are even free. As much weight as you can stuff into them for a damn low price.

      I'm betting she wanted delivery confirmation, insurance, etc

    3. Re:Competitiveness by Manos_Of_Fate · · Score: 1

      The box contained a brand new iPhone 4, so you better believe there was insurance on it. It was insured through OnTrac, as well.

      --
      Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
  18. Legal Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    UPS/FedEx can open your mail pretty much on a whim. The USPS needs a warrant.

  19. junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Part of the problem for me is junk mail. I don't look forward to getting the mail these days because a very small chunk of the pile makes me happy. Junk mail doesn't affect real mail's credibility, but it does degrade the "user-experience" of First Class mail. The USPS is about the least fun way to communicate these days. It's no fun to send anything more complicated than a simple pre-stamped envelope. On the receiving end, the USPS themselves gave away the charm that "getting the mail" held when they decided it was good business to deliver things that say "current resident" or (like the wad of newsprint coupons) don't even have my address on it at all. Eventually, we end up finding more fun ways to communicate personally and, when we do, we start doing all of our business communications that way too.

    1. Re:junk mail by Blink+Tag · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I'm not the only person thinking along these lines.

      One solution? Raise the rates for third-class/bulk mail/junk mail (and if you want to be really aggressive, political flyers).

  20. Compete with UPS and Fedex? Huh? by pease1 · · Score: 1
    This week I needed to get a package to a friend from one coast to the other in two days with the delivery end being a pretty remote location in the western US. Experience in the past had suggested USPS would say two days, but it would really take three to four. Last year, their "tracking" system showed the package had been dropped off and offered no updates until it was delivered... and that wasn't updated for several hours after delivery.

    This year, Fedex was really two days and tracking was updated at least every 8 hours right down to it was out on the truck for local delivery.

    I fully expect any "reform" of USPS will be nothing more than restrictions on the private sector who completes against it.

  21. Postman by Dusty101 · · Score: 1

    Build a Robot Kevin Costner?

  22. USPS isn't in as bad a state as you might think by GKThursday · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The thing is that the USPS wouldn't been doing as bad if congress wasn't constantly meddling.
    They set up "retirement health benefits pre-funding" at approx $5.5 billion a year. Now pre-funding retirement benefits is a good idea, but that's not what this money is used for. That $5.5 billion goes into the federal coffers. This is after the USPS was forced to overfund their previous pension by $75 billion.
    USPS would have been profitable in 3 of the last 4 years without the pre-funding requirement.
    I work as a "Postal liaison" for a commercial printer. Which pretty much means I have to watch every minute detail of the USPS in the news. I think they are headed for a hard fall, but not because their business model is broken, but because of the meddling of 536 "CEOs".

  23. Stop Trying to Subsidize Junk Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the USPS raised rates on advertising and other junk mail, rather than using first class mail rates to subsidize the junk mailers, they would start doing better financially.

    As far as the low-grade 'let's privatize everything' morons, well, we're on the edge of a second depression - and idiots like you are the reason we are here. The Post Office exists to serve a vital public function, or at least it did before the Republileeches perverted it into a semi-private corporation - presumably with the intent of destroying it, and replacing it with private couriers or some other sort of cutting-edge stupidity from the late 1600's. Hell, I'm surprised they aren't still trying to burn 'witches.'

    The USPS should be re-nationalized, and fixed - not destroyed, just so a group of societal parasites can leech a profit out of everyone else.

    1. Re:Stop Trying to Subsidize Junk Mail by GKThursday · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't like the cost of FCM without Standard mail. Automation of the mail is the reason you can send a one ounce letter from California to Maine for $0.44. Automation requires a large volume of mail to be economically feasible.
      Also, its not like mailers get a subsidy just because they are nice people. They clean the addresses, update for moves, pre-sort the mail to USPS specs, and put a barcode on so the mail can skip several steps. The subsidy is for this work, it's called "work-sharing."
      Raising the rates on advertising mail always drives volume away, and at this point in time, the USPS needs every scrap of volume it can get.
      As for the semi-privatization, that was a stupid idea. The USPS needs freedom to react, and 536 "CEOs" is no way to get that freedom. Congress is all about the USPS saving itself, but won't let it close a Post Office that serves 50 people and is less than a mile from anther Post Office. And at the same time Congress steals $5.5 billion a year to fund deficit spending. If any private company embezzled that amount the executives would be behind bars.

  24. What they need to do is what we are missing. by techhead79 · · Score: 1

    They should provide a secure digital communication system, encryption and the rule of law stating the same as with snail mail. The government can't read it without warrant.

    I know you're all thinking this is retarded and everything but just hear me out for a second.

    Legal documents and countless other non physical items still are transferred through the post office. I should be able to send a message to the post office in a method that verifies my identity for the receiver. I shouldn't have to sign things by hand there should be a method to digitally sign everything with a specific time stamp using a time based encryption algo. GPG should be adopted and new features should be included to allow public keys/certificates private keys to be controlled by the sender and provided by the post office.

    If I don't own a computer I should still be able to go into a post office with letter in hand. That letter should be scanned into the system with my identity verified at the post office either with biometrics or other means. The letter should be encrypted using my key system. The law should protect the sender from what technology can not...someone opening up the envelope to read what it says before sending it forward. How much mail would this reduce or remove? Once the receiving Post office gets the digital package if the receiver owns a computer it is available to them by the post office verifying by IP or pushing it out to the system for delivery. If the receiver does not own a computer it should be printed off or alternatively provided in a portable digital transfer by simply hooking up your USB key at a local Post Office.

    Spam is mute when you know the senders identity 100%. Even if it wasn't you can follow systems out there now that will not accept a digital package until the receiver accepts it from the user (return to sender).

    There is no reason for anyone to live with spam today and there is no reason to fear the government if laws protect the citizens from corruption of our Rights. The USPO has an opportunity here to make huge changes...in addition to funding the broadband in every home ideal. That would be looking forward.

  25. USPS does a very poor job by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The company that gets my shipping money just needs to do a few things:

    • Track the package(s), the more accurately the better
    • Deliver the materials when they said they would
    • Pay quickly and reliably upon loss

    USPS fails miserably on the first and third of these. If they want my shipping business, they'll have to do all three.

    In the meantime, UPS seems to have the most accurate tracking, has given us the least trouble when it comes to errors they made (like delivering packages to the wrong address, or damaging well packed items in transit), and barring really extreme weather, they almost never fail to deliver on time or sooner.

    There are some less-critical areas where USPS could improve as well.

    • They take far too many days off
    • If there is much snow in the way, they won't deliver
    • Cancels are almost always illegible
    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:USPS does a very poor job by winwar · · Score: 1

      "The company that gets my shipping money just needs to do a few things:

              * Track the package(s), the more accurately the better
              * Deliver the materials when they said they would
              * Pay quickly and reliably upon loss

      USPS fails miserably on the first and third of these. If they want my shipping business, they'll have to do all three."

      Why exactly is one and three important if two is reliably done? For a business customer, possibly. But for most people, not important. I have never had a letter or package lost or damaged to an extent that needed insurance payout by USPS, FedEx or UPS. Any problems happened before or after shipping.

    2. Re:USPS does a very poor job by Third+Position · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, but all of that goes out of the window for international shipping. I sent a laptop to China with UPS, and the damn thing sat in a depot in Shenzhen for six weeks due to one bureaucratic snafu after another, not to mention the cost of shipping was something like $300. The next time I shipped something there, I used USPS International Shipping and it was there in 2 days, and it cost me less than half of what UPS charged.

      But yeah, for domestic shipping, I'd go with UPS.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    3. Re:USPS does a very poor job by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there is much snow in the way, they won't deliver

      You must live near one of the few crappy local post offices in the US. I've found the USPS to be the most economical and reliable of all between them, UPS and FedEx. It's gotten to the point where I only use USPS when shipping anything, and when I have a choice regarding how I want something shipped to me, I request USPS.

      I've had UPS leave packages on my front porch that are blown off and found weeks later underneath the porch and worse. Their customer service is awful. They require signatures when it's unnecessary and get no signatures when they're really needed. If I want to send something I have to go stand in line at one of the service centers (I can put stuff in my mailbox and the mail carrier will take it for me). When I drop a Netflix DVD in the mail at 4pm, it registers as having been received by Netflix in as little as 4 hours. I don't know how they do that, except maybe they have a deal where Netflix is notified when the USPS scans the bar code or something. I'd like to see FedEx or UPS offer that kind of service at no cost to the end user. Funny, when Netflix, who probably ships as many parcels as anyone in this country, chose a carrier for their business, they chose the USPS.

      I can ship a 3 pound textbook to Hawaii for under 4 bucks via USPS and I've never had one not show up (I sell books on Amazon occasionally).

      Personally, I don't care that the USPS takes a few days off, because I take lots of days off. But then again, my life is not so heavily scheduled for it to matter to me. For all I care, USPS can stop Saturday deliveries and I'd still think they were the far superior of the three major shippers.

      When UPS can deliver an envelope from New York to San Francisco for under 50 cents, I might re-evaluate. Until then, I'd much rather live with UPS or FedEx disappearing tomorrow than the US Post Office.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:USPS does a very poor job by coolgeek · · Score: 1

      Because the volume of mail sent by businesses accounts for the lion's share of their revenue.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    5. Re:USPS does a very poor job by Dewin · · Score: 2, Informative

      When UPS can deliver an envelope from New York to San Francisco for under 50 cents, I might re-evaluate. Until then, I'd much rather live with UPS or FedEx disappearing tomorrow than the US Post Office.

      To prevent private carriers from choosing to compete with USPS on the most profitable routes (which would mean the USPS couldn't afford to service less profitable routes), there are Private Express Statutes. Without them, UPS likely could deliver from New York to San Fransisco for less than 50 cents.

      In 1979 the Postal Service authorized the delivery of extremely urgent letters outside the USPS; this has given rise to delivery services such as Federal Express and UPS. These letters must either cost at least the greater of $3 or twice what First Class (or Priority) mail service would cost, or they must be delivered within strict time limits or otherwise lose value. They must be marked "EXTREMELY URGENT". Records of pick up and delivery must be maintained for Postal Service inspection if the time sensitive exception is being used.

      --
      Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.
    6. Re:USPS does a very poor job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing they do really well is not open your package. UPS/Fedex can open your package if an employee is suspicious. USPS has a much higher bar, so when privacy is important there is not really any other choice.

    7. Re:USPS does a very poor job by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then how is UPS able to provide domestic letter services? I'm not talking about their USPS affiliations, but simple "document in an envelope" delivery"?

      I have one of these envelopes right here on my desk, in which a proposal was sent and delivered to me by UPS.

      It doesn't say "urgent" anywhere on it, nor did it require an immediate reply.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:USPS does a very poor job by Dewin · · Score: 1

      From the original source I learned this about a long time ago, I don't recall the "urgent" requirement either -- just the time-sensitive portion or the greater of $3.00/double the postage rate requirement.

      --
      Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.
    9. Re:USPS does a very poor job by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Why exactly is one and three important if two is reliably done?

      For #1: When customers call and ask about their package, it is very reassuring to them to be told "it's in transit, on time, presently in Minneapolis" or "it's on the local truck for delivery." For the business, this extends into the "happy customer is more likely to be a repeat customer."

      For #3, if you order something and spend X$ on it, and the carrier loses or ruins it, you're going to want that money back. Even if reliability is 99.99%, that's no comfort whatsoever to the person who loses their package.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:USPS does a very poor job by owski · · Score: 1

      Not only can a company be shut down for competing with the USPS, the post office can fine you for using UPS and FedEx for mail they think isn't "URGENT" enough.

      http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/express/techno/postal/express.html
      http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg07200.html

    11. Re:USPS does a very poor job by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      You must live near one of the few crappy local post offices in the US.

      Huh. You must live near one of the few good local post offices in the US. Everywhere I have lived the USPS has been a distant 3rd. Really distant, as in not even playing the same game. They behave like a monopoly that could care less what its customers think. Oh wait ...

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    12. Re:USPS does a very poor job by LaughingCoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When UPS can deliver an envelope from New York to San Francisco for under 50 cents, I might re-evaluate.

      Very funny. The fact is they (the USPS) can't either, which is exactly why they are projected to lose hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    13. Re:USPS does a very poor job by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      That sounds to me that it is best for USPS should focus on international shipping, and even work with UPS on international shipping.

    14. Re:USPS does a very poor job by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I've had UPS leave packages on my front porch that are blown off and found weeks later underneath the porch and worse. Their customer service is awful. They require signatures when it's unnecessary and get no signatures when they're really needed.

      I had to ship a handgun back to the manufacturer once upon a time for a warranty issue. When it was shipped back to me the local UPS driver left it on my porch without getting a signature for it. Every single side of that package was stamped "ADULT SIGNATURE REQUIRED" but the dipshit just left it out in the open.

      That could have ended very badly.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    15. Re:USPS does a very poor job by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I forgot to ask about Canada Post. Does anybody know how Canada Post is doing? I can't imagine them being any better.

      We are subscribed to Zip.ca. I'm happy with the service and the concept, but DVDs haven't been coming very frequently this summer, and I blame Canada Post.

    16. Re:USPS does a very poor job by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      (I can put stuff in my mailbox and the mail carrier will take it for me).

      I saw that on a commercial. I was so surprised. Is that only for rural areas?

      Personally, I don't care that the USPS takes a few days off, because I take lots of days off. But then again, my life is not so heavily scheduled for it to matter to me. For all I care, USPS can stop Saturday deliveries and I'd still think they were the far superior of the three major shippers.

      Exactly. A lot of people don't need service every day. A lot of us could do without service on certain days. A lot of mail could be delivered tomorrow or 2 weeks from now. Postal companies might be wise to offer optional service. In other words, only deliver certain kinds of mail every day or every business day, while other mail will only be delivered when there is more mail to accompany it.

    17. Re:USPS does a very poor job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problems for UPS are two-fold. One, USPS mail is covered under treaty, this helps speed up mail. Two, Foreign countries treat foreign all UPS mail as if all of it were sent as commercial imports aka they will always place tariffs on items sent UPS but rarely are the same items with the same forms sent USPS even inspected. I think it is more of an idea that individuals send mail USPS and only companies send mail UPS.

    18. Re:USPS does a very poor job by coaxial · · Score: 1

      There are some less-critical areas where USPS could improve as well.

      If there is much snow in the way, they won't deliver

      Never heard that one, and never heard that in comparison to FedEx or UPS. Also, it's ironic given its unofficial creed, but then again, it is unofficial. ;)

      The USPS is also cheaper than any alternative, and has home pickup and delivery, including weekend delivery, all for no extra charge. Tell that to UPS or FedEx.

    19. Re:USPS does a very poor job by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Forget that, I had something shipped from Denver to Anchorage that manged to make it to Shanghai. Because it didn't have the right documents, it was held for weeks. A month after "lost" we had a replacement from the manufacturer. The "lost" item showed up after more than two months. That was next-day delivery from UPS.

    20. Re:USPS does a very poor job by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to figure out what to do about lost packages. When I spend money on something and the package is lost or damaged, I don't get to complain, file a loss, or anything else. Instead, the person with my money and who dropped the package off for delivery gets my complaint. Then they have to then do more work for no more money, with an urgency that reflects their lack of interest. And I'm the one out the money and the item and I can't do anything at all about it.

    21. Re:USPS does a very poor job by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That could have ended very badly.....

      It was shipped loaded?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    22. Re:USPS does a very poor job by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      No, I was thinking about what would have happened if it had been stolen. I live in the People's Republic of New York -- people have been known to lose their pistol licenses here for having firearms stolen.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    23. Re:USPS does a very poor job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could have ended very badly.....

      It was shipped loaded?

      That's not the only potential problem... Someone could have stolen the gun and used it to commit a crime, then dump the weapon. If the police found the weapon and tried to establish ownership by manufacturer and sales records it would be traced back to Shakrai.

    24. Re:USPS does a very poor job by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I live in the People's Republic of New York -- people have been known to lose their pistol licenses here for having firearms stolen.

      Oh, my condolences. Yes, I see the problem, esp. if UPS can't be counted on to honor its agreements.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    25. Re:USPS does a very poor job by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The only saving grace is that Kimber sent it back to me in a non-marked box using a generic name (K Industries or something like that) on the return label, so it wasn't readily apparent that a gun was inside the box. It still really irks me that UPS just left it on the porch like that though.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  26. Simply raise the rates... by Digital_Mercenary · · Score: 0

    Simply raise the rates to be more in-line with the costs of doing business. It's an expensive operation to run that we all benefit from so charge accordingly.

    -DML

  27. The more things change... by xednieht · · Score: 1
    The more they stay the same.

    USPS's future lies in things that need to be delivered physically: shoes, computers and other objects, and the USPS has assets that could let it take on UPS and FedEx.

    I could not disagree more. USPS's future lies in mail, e-mail to be more specific, they just need to step up to the plate and do what needs to be done. It's astounding that the USPS doesn't see the opportunity that is right in front of their eyes.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
    1. Re:The more things change... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      USPS delivering email? No way. They're just not a skilled competitor in that space.

      I think they do need to stick to physical goods, but streamline it a lot for the demands of rapid internet ordering and overnight (or faster) delivery. Why are there so few postal companies offering 2 hour delivery, for instance?

      You're right that they've no future in delivering shoes, since desktop fabrication will kill that market in a few decades too. But even with desktop fab, people will still need raw materials.

  28. Unlike you all, I LOVE the USPS... by afabbro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...and am a very heavy user, for an individual. I mail 6-8 letters/postcards/packages a day, none of which is ebay or anything like that. That's what you get from having friends all over the place, Postcrossing, etc.

    I like my postman, and I like the fact that in Portland I am usually near a post office or postbox. I have many fond memories of going to the PO when I was a kid, I used to collect stamps, etc. However...

    • The USPS needs to get away from banker's hours. Hell, banks need to get away from banker's hours! We all work 9-5. The airport office here is open until 10pm (yes, counter service at USPS at 10pm!), but that is a very rare post office. And you have to drive to the airport which is a pretty good drive for me even though I live near the airport.
    • I am continuously offended by the asinine idiocy of "you must take all packages weighing 16 oz or more to the counter". This is supposedly a Unibomber-era security regulation but in reality it's a way for the union to keep window staff high.

    The real problem with USPS is the union. High, inflexible labor costs. No ability to terminate people without an Act of Congress, no ability to do layoffs, etc. By all accounts (some of them quite entertaining), the Post Office is an awful place to work: management that's rotted in place, hip-deep paperwork and bureaucracy, bitter people who do the barest minimum to avoid being fired, no incentives to do better, etc.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:Unlike you all, I LOVE the USPS... by perpetual+pessimist · · Score: 1

      I am continuously offended by the asinine idiocy of "you must take all packages weighing 16 oz or more to the counter". This is supposedly a Unibomber-era security regulation but in reality it's a way for the union to keep window staff high.

      I believe that's not quite true. The rule is that packages over 13 ounces (they changed it in January 2010 to 13 down from 16 ounces) that only have postage stamps on them to pay for postage, must be taken to the counter. If you use one of the Automated Postal Center (APC) units that most post offices have in their lobbies, you can purchase postage for the package there, pay with a credit/debit card, put the printed label on the package and drop it in the collection bin. Supposedly by paying with a credit card, there's increased security because they can track the owner of the card.

    2. Re:Unlike you all, I LOVE the USPS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The real problem with USPS is the union. High, inflexible labor costs. No ability to terminate people without an Act of Congress, no ability to do layoffs, etc. By all accounts (some of them quite entertaining [wikipedia.org]), the Post Office is an awful place to work: management that's rotted in place, hip-deep paperwork and bureaucracy, bitter people who do the barest minimum to avoid being fired, no incentives to do better, etc."

      You ought to be ashamed to repeat criticisms thoughtlessly. I actually work for the Postal Service and the above is just nonsense. The layoff and termination policy is in return for no strikes. Yes, you can terminate and layoff, but we then get the right of all free americans to deny our participation, that is, to go out on strike. It is amazing how people think it right for the executives of the Postal Service to be allowed to act as a business while at the same time denying the human right to strike on their own behalf to Postal Service employees. Apparently the propaganda has worked on the minds of the American Public. They accept trillions of dollars in bailouts for fat cat financiers and criminal financial institutions at the same time they bitterly resent any american making decent American wages and benefits.

  29. Pricing cuts both ways by davmoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lot of people here are whining that the post office charges too much. So why don't you call UPS or Fed Ex and see if they'll ship a 1 pound package from Supai, Arizona 86435 to Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 for the same $4.95 that the USPS will charge for flat rate Priority Mail.

    And don't even get me started on first class mail. Even if they were allowed to carry it, I'd be willing to bet money that UPS or Fed Ex would laugh in my face if I expected them to deliver a letter just from one side of town to the other for 44 cents.

    For some mail and packages, yes, UPS and Fed Ex can do it cheaper. But for *many* places and types of mail, USPS is a freaking bargain (and that's why it doesn't make money).

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  30. Self-Sufficient Postal Service by KnightMareInc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Alot of people like to conveniently forget that prior to the economic collapse of the world's economy the USPS was not only sulf-sufficient but kept prices crazy low without taking tax payer dollars. http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/selfsufficient.html#selfsufficient http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm

  31. Two Things Killing USPS Beside Lack of Mail Volume by dammy · · Score: 0, Interesting

    As a former USPS Rural Carrier PFT (Part Time Flex), I can tell you two things that are indeed causing USPS to be highly inefficient. First is the huge number of middle managers that are there to create paperwork to justify their and their superior's jobs. Lets gut middle management that are the bane of reports that are forced on Post Masters and Customer Service Supervisors. Post Master should have complete control over their office, they are the front line managers that need to be empowered and not hobbled management wise. Second is the unions, Rural Carriers have their own, City Carriers have their own, Clerks have their own, so do Maintence, what's left of them that haven't been subcontracted out. I can't remember if the mail handlers have their own or not or apart of the clerks, wouldn't surprise me if they did. There needs to be one union and that's it, not separate unions each with their own contracts that say what can and can not be done.

    No, I was not a member of National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, I refused to join when I realized that as a RCA (before I became career as a RC PTF), the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association didn't give a rat's ass about us Rural Carrier Associates (RCAs), we were just a poker chip in their weak ass negotiations with USPS, we got zero health care benefits nor did we get other major perks that the Rural Carriers got. I've never heard of a union not insuring their apprentices receive health care benefits, but that is how they treat their apprentices (RCAs). Even City Carrier union made sure their substitute carriers got insurance and full benefits.

    USPS is a mess, it needs radical changes to make it into a effective and money making business. It's losing money because their cash cow, Business Bulk Mail, volume is in the toilet along with the first class mail. It will take congress to get them sorted out and we know how well they are doing with budgets...

  32. I'm actually surprised first class mail isn't $1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm actually surprised that first class mail isn't $1 for a letter yet.

  33. yes it's not fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I don't give a shit because it's only 40 cents and don't use it a lot. Why complain about stupid shit? USPS works fine.

    1. Re:yes it's not fair by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I don't give a shit because it's only 40 cents and don't use it a lot. Why complain about stupid shit? USPS works fine.

      The problem is that any government agency or quasi-government agency that works well, that is popular with Americans and has a much higher customer satisfaction rate than any of its private competitors, is a stone in the shoe of the Anti-US Government Right Wing.

      Thus, it cannot be allowed to exist because it endangers their world view.

      Like evolution. Or global warming.

      Basically, if Ronald Reagan, a third-rate actor with Alzheimers, didn't like it, it cannot be allowed to exist.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:yes it's not fair by zogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I live in the heart of what could be considered fairly right wing territory, and I have yet to hear anyone dis the post office or call for its removal. I think you are classifying "blue" area urban rich people millionaires who are globalists anyway, not nationalists, in with the normal regular folks.

      There's really a wide range of opinion here, it isn't all conservative or liberal, and globalists are neither, they are monetarists and fascists, they just latch on to whatever support they can get..like Hollywood "blue" liberal millionaires who still want all their profits private, but want government to protect them as well, ie, xxAA type folks. All for liberal causes, like you mention global warming, but it doesn't stop them running Ferrari, private jets, having huge energy hog mansions, etc. Are they the same "liberal" as some college student eating ramen living in a dorm and walking everywhere?

      So you can't really generalize all that much. Heck, I am a rural person, socially liberal, and old time civil rights worker back in the day, but economically conservative, enough so that I think bailing out the banks and GM was a horrid idea, it made no sense from either a right nor a left wing view, but again, wanting some control on mega corporations so they don't usurp government. So, mostly hands off..but let them fail when their biz model fails. What does that make me, liberal or conservative? I like green power a *lot*, I think solar power is our only practical fusion power and should be widely adopted, all the way to 100% tax credits, am one of the few people here who bought solar panels instead of some gaming rig or three, but I also think carbon credits and cap and trade "to fight global warming"!! is not only wrong, but insanely wrong and won't do jack squat to save the environment any, just make wall street skunks like goldman sachs richer, like they really need it. To think they have so many greens faked out on this... Am I liberal or conservative?

      I could go on with a lot of other examples, but this left/right deal the uber goons keep trying to force people into, like it is carved in stone you must be one "wing" or the other, is quite destructive and is playing into their hands and is part of their "keep the people divided and conquered" routine.

      Left and right have no bearing in today's world if you really think about it, it is globalist billionaires who co-opted government versus their prey animals, which is everyone else. *That* is the real political divide, the one worth noting and working against, because it is so inherently unfair and outright criminal how much they control so called "elected" governments. That other crap is what they want to keep most people trapped in, because that means all the victims point fingers at each other constantly, instead of looking just one more step upstream where the real problems occur, and at that level, there is no "left versus right" that exists very much, they all look and act the same at that level, they are the new aristocrats, or what I call the technofeudalists. Back to the casino bank bailouts, when the shrubbery did it, it was a "right wing" gift to some "right wing" billionaires..but then later on mr. party animal did the same thing....see how it doesn't matter, those labels? All part of the big fake out, along with that ludicrous "don't waste your vote"! and only vote for some hand picked for you candidate from the short list of approved and compromised millionaire globalist candidates. Remember when our big fat choice was between skull and bones frat boy millionaire and skull and bones frat boy millionaire?

      Anyway, the post office..most real old fashioned "paleo" conservatives (as opposed to neocons) I know support the Constitution and as such, are in favor of the post office and public roads, the "post roads". It's the globalist already billionaires who want privatized everything, and that notion flows downstream from the mega "blue" areas, like NYC and wall street (for the most part and I am really just generally speaking)

    3. Re:yes it's not fair by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, I live in the heart of what could be considered fairly right wing territory, and I have yet to hear anyone dis the post office or call for its removal.

      Of course not friend. The people who live in your area and the conservative souls who live near me have no reason to dislike the post office.

      It's the media figures who drive opinion on the Right that are making all the anti-US Government stuff up. I have a vacation house in a part of Missouri that's about as conservative as it gets and I'd never heard anyone talk against the US Government until the Limbaughs started it. Maybe they didn't like taxes to be so high, but you never heard this notion that "they ought to end social security" or "shut down the post office" or any of that crap.

      Unfortunately, the people who are whispering into the ear of the Right would like there to be no government so then there would be an open field for a corporatocracy. The Left in America? there is no Left in America. You have a corporatist party and a a slightly less corporatist party. You have a party that is made up entirely of white men (and a few women) and a party that lets people of color in. Those are the only differences.

      There hasn't been a Left in the United States since 1972.

      It's the globalist already billionaires who want privatized everything, and that notion flows downstream from the mega "blue" areas, like NYC and wall street

      Worse than a generalization, this is simply not factual. Don't confuse the notion with people on Wall Street who gave money to Obama once it looked like he was going to become president with them actually supporting him or being "on the Left". Wall Street is not part of the Left. NYC is not part of The Left. It's completely along ethnic lines. Just because the wives of bankers support PETA doesn't mean they're going to go out and vote.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  34. Vegetarianism to ease the USPS's job by tepples · · Score: 1

    Do you really want pig farms to move in next to you? How about a slaughterhouse?

    Thank you for explaining why zoning laws exist. But I imagine that if we want to make a large-scale switch from farming far from cities to urban gardening in order to make the job of the USPS easier, this would have to go hand in hand with more vegetarianism.

  35. Eliminate Physical Spam by istartedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They need to find a way to make money without sending me physical spam, aka "bulk mail" addressed to "occupant".

    What annoys me the most about mail is the huge percentage that I walk straight to the recycling bin.

    However, if they enforced a regulation requiring that all such mail must be printed on compostable paper, using organic ink I'd be quite a bit happier. Into the compost bin, along with the broccoli stalks and onion peels it would go. Then, a few months later that grocery ad for fresh veggies would be turned into... fresh veggies!

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Eliminate Physical Spam by shentino · · Score: 1

      I thought those were called coupons.

  36. In other words, everything better by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    seen something similar in norway as well. Here the post offices outside of cities are basically gone, replaced with some kind of partnership with a local store or gas station (tho funny enough, that have lead to better opening hours, as the post offices used to maintain normal office ours, not store hours).

    So the hours are better for service, but you have to go somewhere to pick up your mail.

    Well honestly, why should you expect to live way out in the countryside and expect to have mail delivered to your doorstep, any time, for hardly any money? That doesn't seem realistic or efficient long term. Either the post office needs to jack up stamp rates quite a lot to pay for this extra service, or people that have the privilege of living in isolated environments simply have to put up with getting mail when they go into town (or when neighbors go into town).

    I used to live in the countryside as well; I greatly prefer it and would not mind having less regular or centralized mail service as a tradeoff.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:In other words, everything better by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well honestly, why should you expect to live way out in the countryside and expect to have mail delivered to your doorstep, any time, for hardly any money? That doesn't seem realistic or efficient long term.

      Indeed, which is why we've been doing it that way for a couple of centuries...oh, wait.

      There's 2 options, either we consider mail to be a vital part of the infrastructure of the nation and treat it as such, or we keep following the path Reagan and Thatcher have laid out for us and eventually abandon it altogether except where it pertains to junk mail, which we'll collectively block through a sticker on the front door.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:In other words, everything better by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't the people who live way out in the country who expect to have mail delivered to their doorstep that are the root of the problem. It is the people who live/do business in metropolitan areas (or not) who expect that when they put something business related in the mail to someone they can expect it to get to that someone in a certain amount of time (that time primarily being determined by how far the recipient is from the sender rather than by how urban or rural the recipient's address is).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  37. Irrelevant? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    UPS/FedEx can open your mail pretty much on a whim. The USPS needs a warrant.

    How would that help reduce USPS delivery costs though? Unless you are saying they should be rifling through email looking to take a cut of any cashiers checks or birthday money they find.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  38. Planning by PPH · · Score: 1

    It needs to forecast volumes for all types of its business five, 10 and 15 years out and design a business model that will thrive under those scenarios.

    Translation: In 5, 10 or 15 years, they'll drag one of their clerks off the loading dock where s/he is having a smoke break and put them on the front counter when the line extends out the front door.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  39. Mail Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "... and the USPS has assets that could let it take on UPS and FedEx"
    Yeah, its called a monopoly, a coercive government enforced monopoly. Its hard to have real, fair competition when your competitor makes the rules and can send people with guns to come and take your money, lock you up, or kill you if you are too good at competing against them.

  40. Why profitable? by sohp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article starts from a false assumption: that the postal service must be profitable, or at least break even.

    Framing the issue this way has nothing to do with what the USPS should or should not carry, or how much they should charge.

    Why is that so for the postal service but not for the military, department of transportation, or most any other government agency that provides a service? Universal free mail delivery is something that the citizens of the US want -- or at least did at one time. As a government service, it's something taxpayers agree to pay for.

    Now clearly the two authors of this article, management consultants, have a different view of that need. Perhaps they are ideologically inclined to expect that government services should break even or better, in which case, they ought to take on a real challenge and explain to the Pentagon how they can "save" the armed forces. Or perhaps they have a financial interest in private delivery services like FedEX and UPS, who knows? It's clear from early in the article, "Should the federal government continue to compete against the private sector?" that the authors have a sense that somehow there's money to made for UPS, FedEx, and other private delivery services if the postal service was forced to compete on the same level as them. I'm sure they wouldn't advocate for reforming USPS if they thought it would take money away from the private sector.

    In any case, before people go trying to reform USPS, let's first decide if we want to continue to support the current expectation of free (for the recipient) door-to-door mail service for everyone in the country everywhere. If citizens clearly want that, then budget (and tax) for it, and shut up about billion dollar "losses" that pale compared to the "losses" racked up by other services we expect as a modern nation. On the other hand, if the country decides that hey, we don't need to deliver everywhere any more, then go ahead, revamp the postal service to be just another profit-motivated competitor.

    1. Re:Why profitable? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      My personal opinion, YMMV: any wing of a government that can be run profitably should probably be private-market. The government in general is supposed to pick up those parts of the economy that benefit everyone in a way that doesn't lend itself to private industry and profit. If there is sufficient profit motive: better to leave it to the general population.

      I'm not a free-market fundie (I think they're vastly optimistic about the human condition). Nor do I think government screws everything up and needs to be as small as possible. And I believe the Post Office should be stripped down to mail service on alternating days. But in general, trying to make government services profitable is the wrong way to look at them.

    2. Re:Why profitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The article starts from a false assumption: that the postal service must be profitable, or at least break even.

      It's self-funded, so yes, it IS supposed to break even. And the rates have always been quite a lot lower than private services, so I'd say it has always been worth it so far.

      > Why is that so for the postal service but not for the military, department of transportation, or most any other government agency that provides a service?

      Well gee, one of these has an obvious mechanism for paying by individual use, and the others don't? And the mail in particular has very uneven utilization by citizens; there are mass mailers and there are people who only send a few postcards a year. (I think most people would be damned insulted by the insinuation that we should be personally paying the shipping on the worthless spam some companies shovel into our mailboxes every day.)

      In comparison, you couldn't really fund the military through individual billing. You can sort of halfway do it for transportation - which we already do with fuel taxes.

    3. Re:Why profitable? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      The article starts from a false assumption: that the postal service must be profitable, or at least break even.

      This is a very old idea - mail services are a very old service and have pretty much been self-funded or profitable the whole time. Ben Franklin's long and distinguished career as a postmaster for the British Crown began as postmaster of Philadelphia, and raised them quite a bit of money. In 1753 he was made Postmaster general of the American Colonies. He was only let go in 1774 because of his association with some notorious rabble rousers.

      When he was made the Postmaster General by the Continental Congress in 1775 there was no Federal income tax at the time, nor any deficit, nor a central bank and it didn't look like there would ever be. They thought differently back then but I think he felt it being self-funded was a good plan for making it persistent - heck, to make it work at all. It's worked for this long, I see no reason to start second guessing it now. Don't we have some broken stuff to fix?

      It's a service provided by the government. The right price to charge for it is approximately what it costs, so if they're projecting a deficit they should raise the rates. Maybe they should charge more for the junk mail. Mail too important to turn over to a private corporation which pretty much by definition has to charge all that the traffic will bear.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Why profitable? by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      It's self-funded, so yes, it IS supposed to break even. And the rates have always been quite a lot lower than private services, so I'd say it has always been worth it so far.

      I assume you expect museums to support themselves only on $16 "suggested admission" fees? Just because an organization collects money from patrons to help support itself doesn't make that funding exclusive. Even for-profit corporations can rely on other sources of revenue like subsidies.

      And your suggestion that it's necessary to have "individual billing" is wrong, because plenty types of billings are not done on individual basis. Garbage collection, for example, is done per. ton(ne) and is charged indirectly through the municipality. You could have private paramilitary organizations perform services for the government on a per-service basis. It's just an idea we're not comfortable with.

    5. Re:Why profitable? by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      The right price to charge for it is approximately what it costs

      But that's exactly where I believe the problem lies.

      When Ben Franklin set up a postal system the value of transportation of mail was so great that it could be easily profitable. With today's technology, there's very little point sending utility bills through the mail when it costs far less to run a web server sending email. Raising rates has only make it more worthwhile for me to abandon snail mail and make all my bill payments online.

      I wonder if at some point in the non-distant future it would probably make more sense for the government to promote Internet availability and education in rural areas than continuing an outdated system of information dissemination. I don't know that packages should even fit into the equation.

  41. Its's the law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is one reason the USPS is not going anywhere soon.... The legal system of this country runs on it. Many types of legal correspondence (eviction notices, etc) use certified mail and delivery confirmation.
    If a 3rd party is entrusted to handle legal documents with certain requirements then who knows what might happen. The UPS/FedEx guy can't even be bothered to wait 1min for the door to be opened, they just slap on an illegible sticker and run like the zombies are coming.

    That said, the USPS is a big steaming pile of poo, especially in the tracking department. You only find out were it is once it has been delivered, so what's the point. Any of the other shippers let me know exactly where my packages are.

    The local delivery has gone in the shitter too. They seem to be having problems finding good people to work for them. I constantly get other people's mail or they get mine. One time the guy came back and I had to give him the mail he had tossed in the slot because it was all for a house 3 doors down.

  42. The bottom line.... by coolgeek · · Score: 1

    USPS is doomed as long as they continue to outsource their long haul transport to FedEx and UPS. The only way for them to turn it around is to make their service so efficient that the other carriers come to them for long haul transport.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
  43. They're not really Ex-cons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just look like they are because of the need they have for muscles to tote those packages.

  44. There is a group of people with no bank acct or CC by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    Illegals.

  45. Looming disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My greatest fear is that current problems with the USPS will cause it to be privatized, which will be a disaster of EPIC proportions. The USPS is the most efficient mail delivery organization in the WORLD. They delivery more pieces of mail in a week than Fedex and UPS deliver combined in a year. And they do it for under 50 cents a letter. Right now, the Postal service is in trouble because everyone in the U.S. has a legal RIGHT to mail delivery. They have to maintain Post Offices, delivery trucks, sorting centers, etc. for every single U.S. citizen. There are places where mail is still delivered by MULE because there are no paved roads. And the USPS doesn't compete with FED-UPS, it SUBSIDIZES them. The USPS spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year maintaining a national address database - which FED-UPS buys for $50 BUCKS on CD and uses themselves without contributing to the maintenance. You know what FED-UPS does when they get a package for delivery to a remote location - they mail it with USPS. If the USPS gets privatized, mail delivery to remote locations will mostly disappear. And as far as price goes, do you think FED-UPS would leave the price of delivering letters at the break-even point?? H@ll no, you'd be paying $2.50 a letter. The loss of the Postal Service would be like privatizing road construction. Most roads would crumble away, and the profitable ones would have outrageous tolls on them. But since FED-UPS can lobby Congress and the USPS can't I'm sure their demise is inevitable.

    1. Re:Looming disaster by GKThursday · · Score: 1

      Um $50.00?
      Access to Full Service NCoA (National Change of Address) for developers is $175,000.00 per year.

      CASS/DPV (the delivery standardization specs) is $10,000.00 a year.

      USPS does lobby congress, as does the mailing industry as a whole. I'm not saying that Fedex/UPS has no advantages over USPS in regards to the universal service obligation, but that two of your examples were incorrect.

  46. No One on the Hill has a Lick of Sense by transami · · Score: 1

    Peter is crying "wolf". This whole thing is a red-haring to further sell out valuable government services to private industries. If you read the USPS annual report, the cover page shows a price comparison chart with other countries, with subtext of the USPS priding itself on having the lowest prices in the world. Did it ever to occur to anyone that maybe they can't get in the black b/c you they have the "lowest prices in the world"!? I did a quick calculation on the delivery figures they supplied --raise the price of regular stamp 2 to 3 cents and they are in the black --and still tied for the lowest prices in the world with Canada.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  47. They already do compete with Fedex and UPS by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Priority Mail is a pretty economical way to ship things. Especially with their once size, one price boxes. And the secret is Priority takes 2 to 3 days to cross the country.

    The other thing that the postal service carries a lot of is junk mail. Every two weeks I throw out about 15 pounds of junk mail.

    I can see it becoming maybe 3 days a week delivery and pickup for letters, daily for packages etc. Postal mail has just become irrelevant in the modern day. All my bills are paid online with the exception of one thing I still have to write a check for every month.

  48. Re:There is a group of people with no bank acct or by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    That's exactly the crappy attitude I run up against. A big hearty "Fuck you!" to those who actually believe that shit.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  49. No, the post office does not deliver to my house by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

    Actually, the post office does not deliver to my house. I have to drive 6 miles to get my mail from their "cluster box." UPS and Fedex deliver to my house. Conversely, given some of the people the post office has delivering mail, I'm just as glad they don't drop by my house.

  50. How the post office plans to send mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send an e-mail to your (very local) post office 5 blocks away. They print the e-mail, then send it in the mail to your destination. Only a minor ($2) charge for printing, paper and envelope.

  51. Another Take by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the analogy you were reaching for is something akin to IPv6?

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    1. Re:Another Take by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, more like DNS. We've already been through the same transition with telephone numbers. Originally, telephone numbers described routes. The first few digits told you how to get to the correct exchange, then the rest identified the telephone line. For big companies, the last few digits identified the extension. Now (in the UK, and presumably elsewhere) telephone numbers are just numbers. You can move them between telephone networks and when you place a call the exchange looks up the real address via an indirection layer.

      With DNS, you get the same thing on the Internet. You can move your domain name from one server to another - even between continents. It doesn't matter that your IP address changes, because you don't tell people the IP address, only the domain name. They look up the IP each time they need to use it.

      With postal mail, the address is a set of instructions telling someone how to find your house. It should not be. It should be a way of directing mail to you, nothing more. The only people who you should need to notify when it changes are the people who actually come to your house: your friends and the postman.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  52. Re:There is a group of people with no bank acct or by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "That's exactly the crappy attitude I run up against. A big hearty "Fuck you!" to those who actually believe that shit."

    That doesn't exclude it being accurate. The only reason to go cash-only and not use disposable credit cards is paranoia. The Beast still records your transactions. :)

    BTW if you really believe that shit, man up and die fighting instead of playing games (I has no Mark, so I be gwine up to Hebbin'!). No respectable Imaginary Friend condones such mewling weakness.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  53. Why USPO Fails by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

    Here's a (simple) example of how the USPO fails.

    PO boxes. Are routed to their database id's. What the fuck?

    If anyone here is familiar with computers, you know that database id's are used internally to cross-reference external object names. In other words, as far as the outside world is concerned, database id's don't exist.

    Except at the USPO, where database id's are used to send your mail! PO Box 3794281, anyone?

    The USPO would greatly benefit by getting on the information bandwagon, and cross-referencing their PO Box Id's, to actual, sendable mail addresses. For example, PO Box 3794281 maps to "Jane's Hair Care Products," and "Jane Simpson," and nothing else. If you try to send a letter to PO Box 3794281, it fails. You have to know WHO you are sending mail, to get it to work, just spamming boxes should NOT work.

    Why is this cool? Because Jane's Hair Care Products could lift town and move to another location, re-number their PO Box and it would still work.

    The USPO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HOW COMPUTERS WORK. In this age, that is fail.

  54. Re:There is a group of people with no bank acct or by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    That doesn't exclude it being accurate.

    Bullshit! No wonder we get the damn politicians we get.. You people who support this crap are the problem. I guess you all are just too rich to give a damn.. Must be nice.

    This disposable credit card thing might be useful, but the fees might be a rip off... See, contrary to your prejudices and bigotry on the matter, this is the bigger issue..

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  55. Pickups, too by siriuskase · · Score: 1

    For personal delivery AND pickup, it would be better to delete Wednesday. For businesses that don't work on the weekend, it's better to delete Saturday. It's stupid to deliver mail that won't be checked until Monday. But, people do personal business on Saturday, and if there aren't Saturday pickups, they will have to drive to the PO with their outgoing mail. Also, some people are clever enough to have their valuable stuff delivered on Saturday, when they can be home to get to the mailbox before someone else does.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  56. Its called time, and its moving forward. by tengeta · · Score: 1

    See any town messengers around still? Sorry USPS, but your glory days are gone and anything you "digitize" would just be a tax shoved down our throats.

    --
    "They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
  57. Hard to feel sorry for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress just recently outlawed the shipment of tobacco products by USPS. Whoops! There goes a huge chunk of their business. Now I have to rely on UPS to deliver my beloved snus, and I have to make sure I'm home to sign for it. USPS used to deliver it faster and cheaper.

    Oh, if you're a smoker, quit now! Change to snus to get your nicotine. It's delicious and virtually harmless.

  58. Taiwan is the opposite by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 1

    I ship USPS to Taiwan all the time. No matter what it is, it just sits there in customs for 1 to 2 weeks. It doesn't matter if it's a fucking box of chocolates (my girlfriend lives there), they open it up and inspect it at great length.

    If I ship UPS, it gets there on top and my package isn't mutilated by Taiwan customs, for some unknown reason. That said, it's 2~3x cheaper to ship USPS...

  59. You are argueing with people with no social concio by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Your argument is valid, but you are arguing about social values to people with no social values. Me, myself and I. That is all of society to them.

    That certain things like the utility grid, public transport, mail, air traffic control make no sense as non-monopolies, doesn't fit in their tiny little world of "as long as I get it cheap I don't care about anything else".

    Would you think it a good idea if airtraffic control was a non-monopoly, that just anyone could start directing aircraft around the world?

    And how about true competition on the grid? Ten different raillines next to each other, competing with each other. 20 electric cables coming in your house.

    And indeed, 20 different mailboxes. London forced telecoms to have public phoneboxes, so you had multiple sitting next to each other because that is how you show competition while they weren't in remote areas because companies weren't intrested in that.

    Mail is "costly" because you can post a letter anywhere and it will be delivered. if you only payed for delivering it from major city to major city it would be cheaper but the service as a whole would collapse AND THEN even those profitable services would collapse.

    This is most easily explained with public transport. Clearly trains running empty are costing money. So any service outside rush hour should be cut. but that means that if you have to be an half hour early at work, you can't use it, and if you stay an half hour late, you can't. So, even the rush hour service looses out because people are forced to seek alternatives anyway.

    Some services just have to be run as a monopoly and with a build in in-effiency if you want the service to be the service it is.

    There is no need for a US postal service that only delivers to high profit areas. Mail has to be mailed to anyone or it stops being mail and insteads becomes a courier service.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  60. Packages by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    It's a private company granted a monopoly. As such, the USPO is the worst kind of inefficiency and an egregious example of abusing government money to socialize the unprofitable aspects of postal service. The profitable aspects, that of parcel services, is given over to other private companies. Then there's the subsidized junk mail problem.

    Between Amazon and eBay, and everything in between, there are more than enough small and large packages shipped here there and everywhere to keep a good profit. USPTO could be profitable if managed as if it was intended to be proftiable as a company or provide a services as a government agency. Instead it does neither, as a victim of B.I.G.G.A.S. ideology.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  61. Japan's Yamato takes pride in snow deliveries by mattr · · Score: 1

    When I saw this story I was thinking about digital age type services the USPS could provide, something like am escrow or PayPal service but with guarantees on delivery, receipts, and letting you check that you were delivered what you expected. Things that would be more trustworthy and dependable having a reliable government official involved.

    But then I remembered a presentation I heard at a conference last week. Many top companies like Microsoft, Hitachi, IBM, Oracle, etc. were there in Tokyo at the IT Pro conference. They were all talking about cloud computing as the future. And then came the President of Kuroneko Yamato, or in English Yamato Transport. Kuroneko means black cat, which is their logo. It was a very impressive talk and they showed a video which underscored customer satisfaction, the satisfaction their employees feel when thanked, and unstinting effort. They deliver in snow. If USPS could deliver service like Yamato they could beat out UPS and Fedex too. The moral being that digital technology is fine not more important than the delivery service itself.

  62. "the USPS has assets that could... by suprcvic · · Score: 1

    ...let it take on UPS and FedEx." While technically true, it could never happen. I work closely with the USPS as I own an independent pack & ship store and I've seen first hand the culture of sloth that exists at the USPS and my mail carrier even complains about it. If they were ever to compete against UPS or FedEx they would have to drastically adjust the attitude of many of their employees. I would like to say that this culture exists due to the USPS being unionized and essentially being a government agency where it's impossible to get fired but it's not that simple either. I talk to my UPS driver all the time when he stops in to do pick ups and UPS is also unionized and it's damn near impossible to get fired from there as well, yet they operate efficiently and profitably. I don't know what the fix is for the USPS, other than to fire everybody and start over if they want to compete with UPS and FedEx.

  63. Re:USPS int'l ain't so hot either by eckenheimer · · Score: 1
    Late last November I mailed half a dozen Christmas packages to several relatives & friends in Germany via priority mail & first class (depending on weight). USPS was barely cheaper than the commercial carriers, since "parcel post" no longer exists for international (to Europe, anyway). I was told it would take a week to 10 days for them to be delivered. The first package arrived New Year's eve; the rest at various times in January. For an extra 10% or so, they would have arrived in less than a week.

    This spring a friend with a small business sent a bid in to a US Government agency via USPS express "guaranteed one day delivery." He verified with the clerk at the post office that the destination (downtown in a large city less than 250 miles away) was included in the delivery guarantee area. Since the deadline for bids was in 2 days, he figured he had a margin in case it took an extra day. It took 4 days. No refund was offered under the "guarantee." When the winner was announced he found he would have had the winning bid. Another former USPS customer is born.

    --
    "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain
  64. A better idea by eckenheimer · · Score: 1

    Remove the monopoly and ordinary letters and postcards will cost several dollars to send. A better idea is for the USPS to start raising rates substantially, at least 30% per year, on 3rd class mail (catalogs & junk mail), most of which is the postal equivalent of spam, which is now sent at well below first class letter rates. Since the purveyors of those exciting offers and unbelievable bargains have no alternative means of distributing their waste paper (they're already using the net, too), they'll pay the higher rates or quit spamming our postal mailboxes. Considering that over two thirds of what hits my mailbox now is 3rd class mail that I simply recycle, the extra cash and/or reduced volume should help the USPS financially. I'd be willing to pay for the occasional paper-based catalog I really want in exchange for decreasing the quantity of junk.

    --
    "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain
  65. Bums and weirdos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. Then you'll have hundreds of people tramping up to your porch to put stuff in your mailbox. You want every bum in society in your yard and on your porch?

  66. USPS safety issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Entirely correct. The APWU in the postal system is complaining about safety. OSHA has responded and has fined the Providence P&DC alone 558,000 dollars for electrical safety and training violations. The entire Postal Service infrastructure is being examined and there is already millions of dollars of fines to force compliance with electrical safety and training requirements. No Union, no safety. Safety costs. Now I have electrical safety equipment and training and soon the proper insulated tools will be arriving thanks to union action.

  67. Trusted, Secure electronic invoice delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still get paper bills. I get come-ons to sign up for "e-delivery" of my statement, which means an email saying "click here to go to our crappy website, enter another username and another password, to download a pdf copy of your bill." I don't want that. If they would just email the PDF I would be happy, but USPS could:

    1. Provide a truly secure upload facilty for vendors for their PDF invoices.
    2. Provide a truly secure portal for people with addresses or post office boxes to retrieve their stuff.
    3. Use the full faith and credit of the US government to hunt down and kill any attempted hacks or frauds using their legendary "It is a felony to mess with the mail" powers.

    Companies should be thrilled with this. They don't have to cobble a craptastic website together, or spend all day sending out emails. I would be thrilled to have all my invoices in one place.

    A second phase could involve partnerships with financial institutions to allow the metadata of these invoices to be accessible to your online bill payer system.

    Seriously. This would appeal to so many people and would be so easy.

    The only potentially serious problem has to do with transferring the "account" since I envision it being associated with a physical address. When the house changes hands, the locks get changed. Something similar would have to be put in place for this system.