House committee approves bill that would end door-to-door mail...

[Cozarkian]

USPS charges FedEx/UPS for the delivery. If USPS is losing money on the delivery, it is USPS's fault.

I don't recall all the specifics. I have an aunt and uncle that are postal workers and they told me about it. It was some reduced-cost policy they passed to try to convince UPS/FedEx customers to ship USPS but they didn't put in exclusions to prevent UPS/FedEx from taking advantage of it.

I don't believe they aren't losing money in the sense they are subsidizing UPS/FedEx, only in the sense that they are making less money than they were when UPS/FedEx had to pay the regular price for the deliveries.

 

[Oldgamer]

I don't recall all the specifics. I have an aunt and uncle that are postal workers and they told me about it. It was some reduced-cost policy they passed to try to convince UPS/FedEx customers to ship USPS but they didn't put in exclusions to prevent UPS/FedEx from taking advantage of it.

I don't believe they aren't losing money in the sense they are subsidizing UPS/FedEx, only in the sense that they are making less money than they were when UPS/FedEx had to pay the regular price for the deliveries.

The main reason is the forced large pension plan that the repubs have been making the USPS do. It is unfair, and very unrealistic. No company or corp could manage the prepay plan on the specific time line requirement for that pension fund. It was done intentionally to suck money out of them quickly. Many of the Repubs have a vested monetary interest in shutting down the USPS as many have invested into FedEx and UPS and many other private delivery companies. Don't forget the heavy lobbying that these big corps have been doing to push for this as well.

 

[Thebobo]

I don't see the big deal. It's only 15 million addresses. From the OP:

I don't believe I've ever had mail delivered directly to my house. IIRC, even as a kid, the mailbox has always been on the street and the postman drives by and drops your mail off in it. He never leaves his truck.

Fern

I have a door slot, its so freaking nice.

Problem is in suburbia where you have sidewalks you cant drive right up to the mailbox. They don't put them in the grass strips.

I suspect its way more than 15 million all the folks in my neighborhood have mail boxes right next to the front door. I spent a while on google street view and found 1 and that had a fence. This is typical of every neighborhood around here.

just an example of your typical older neighborhood in my area

 

[Fern]

Unless congress repeals the law that required the USPS to pre-fund all current and future pension obligations there is no hope of it ever getting out of the red. It is not realistic to expect the USPS to be self supporting yet still meddle in their operations and not let them pare back on personnel costs. Both sides are guilty of this since they have services they don't want to see cut/reduced since their constituents will complain.

I think it's health care expenses.

Ideally, pension costs should be "pre-funded" ('fully funded' is a better descrition). If it's a Defined Benefit Plan it should be fully funded. Businesses have always had to do that. It's not onerous. If it's a 401(k) type plan the employer should always be required to pay their match annually.

Fern

 

[Pulsar]

meh...I've lived with those kinds of mailboxes since 1999. Not a big deal. Not the most convenient...but I've never had a problem with them either.

My driveway is already so long that I use my car to get the mail.

Frankly, if you're going to whine about having to get your mail at the entrance to your sub,

#FIRSTWORLDPROBLEMS#

 

[gevorg]

why not just deliver mail 2-3 times a week

 

[fskimospy]

I think it's health care expenses.

Ideally, pension costs should be "pre-funded" ('fully funded' is a better descrition). If it's a Defined Benefit Plan it should be fully funded. Businesses have always had to do that. It's not onerous. If it's a 401(k) type plan the employer should always be required to pay their match annually.

Fern

I would suggest looking into what congress has required from the USPS.

Basically they required, over a ten yer period, the funding of USPS's obligations for the next 75 years. It's hard to look at it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to force the USPS into default.

Criminally bad legislation.

 

[mrjminer]

I would suggest looking into what congress has required from the USPS.

Basically they required, over a ten yer period, the funding of USPS's obligations for the next 75 years. It's hard to look at it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to force the USPS into default.

Criminally bad legislation.

Criminal legislation is more like it

 

[Fern]

I would suggest looking into what congress has required from the USPS.

Basically they required, over a ten yer period, the funding of USPS's obligations for the next 75 years. It's hard to look at it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to force the USPS into default.

Criminally bad legislation.

Yeah, and I though that was health care not pensions, which was my point (or one of them).

Pensions, whether they be DBPs or DCPs, should be fully funded. Somehow some expect the public sector to be immune from this standard that is required of everyone else.

Edit: I doubt that they're purposefully trying to run the USPS out of business. I do not doubt that they are fearful if it does close they would otherwise be stuck with paying the benefits. Having such benefits fully funded eliminates that threat. I would also add that this is what you get when you support Congress mandating how others spend their money.

Fern

 

[waggy]

meh. don't care.
They have been talking about closeing small post office's in rural areas. they will put up a large mailbox unit for people instead.

they keep saying they are going to do it "this year" every year now for 3 years lol

 

[feralkid]

I have the book authored by Glen Beck

That's your problem. Trouble is, that's the least of your problems.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, and I though that was health care not pensions, which was my point (or one of them).

Pensions, whether they be DBPs or DCPs, should be fully funded. Somehow some expect the public sector to be immune from this standard that is required of everyone else.

Edit: I doubt that they're purposefully trying to run the USPS out of business. I do not doubt that they are fearful if it does close they would otherwise be stuck with paying the benefits. Having such benefits fully funded eliminates that threat. I would also add that this is what you get when you support Congress mandating how others spend their money.

Fern

I sincerely doubt that Congress was afraid of the USPS's imminent closure when they passed that legislation. I mean our legislators are dumb, but it's hard to believe they are that dumb. The USPS was quite profitable when this legislation was passed, after all. It was simply economically stupid and irrational legislation. Then again I don't think anyone has ever accused the Republicans in Congress of being particularly knowledgeable about economics.

As for what you get when you support Congress mandating how others spend their money, I have no idea what nonsensical point you're trying to make. The USPS is a federal agency, of course Congress can tell it how to spend its money. How else would it possibly be?

The USPS is subject to a mandate that no other business, public or private, is subject to. End of story.

 

[K1052]

Pensions, whether they be DBPs or DCPs, should be fully funded. Somehow some expect the public sector to be immune from this standard that is required of everyone else.

We aren't talking about "fully funded" we are talking about pre-funding for the better part of a century. They have to make pension payments for employees they don't even have yet decades into the future.

Nobody does this. If you can find me another example in the US where a public or private pension is required to be fully pre-funded on a compressed timetable for future employees that might not even be born yet I'll eat my hat.

It is obscene that the law hasn't been amended.

 

[Fenixgoon]

i would rather USPS be overseen by congress and run by the postmaster general than fucked over by congress and overseen by the postmaster general.

seriously, what other organization has to fund retirement 75 years in advance?

I would suggest looking into what congress has required from the USPS.

Basically they required, over a ten yer period, the funding of USPS's obligations for the next 75 years. It's hard to look at it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to force the USPS into default.

Criminally bad legislation.

agreed.

 

[sportage]

I am all for this curbside thing.
I have always said they should do this.

#1. Less tampering with personal mailboxes on the street.
#2. One stop mail drop/pickup.
#3. Boxes/packages would still be left on the doorstep.
#4. Apartments already do this and it seems just fine.
$5. Also, a convenient place to drop off outgoing mail. No more trips to the PO.
#6. It should save money not only with gas costs but save delivery time.

Yep. Im all for this. The community mailbox. Sounds like a liberal minded solution to me.
And I say that proudly.

 

[John Connor]

That's your problem. Trouble is, that's the least of your problems.