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.'"

64 of 299 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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...

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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...

    10. 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.

    11. 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?

    12. 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.)

    13. 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?

    14. 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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    22. 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.
    23. 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
    24. 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!
    25. 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.

    26. 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
    27. 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.
  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 nlawalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would be... a lot of people.

  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 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...
    3. 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
  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 XanC · · Score: 3, Informative
    6. Re:not actually a monopoly by owski · · Score: 2, Informative
  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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 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.

  8. 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
  9. Legal Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  10. 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".

  11. 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 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!
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
  12. 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. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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

  16. 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"?
  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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)