If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   USPS defaults on another $5.6 billion payment but assures customers it'll be business as usual   (usatoday.com) divider line 52
    More: Fail, U.S. Postal Service, postal services, payments  
•       •       •

795 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Oct 2012 at 8:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 12:19:41 AM
How much does DoD owe it's retirees? Yeah... I don't give a flying f*ck how much the USPS is being forced to pay into (and default on)... They are an essential service. Privatization is not the answer to many things. No matter what your 12th-grade mind tells you.
 
2012-10-02 12:21:04 AM
Gee. When congress imposes ridiculous regulations designed to force failure, failure happens. Color me shocked. But don't you dare limit private enterprise.
 
2012-10-02 12:27:43 AM
That's what happens when you're forced to pay 75 years of pensions in 5 years and banned from effectively raising income to pay for it.
 
2012-10-02 01:04:55 AM
Business as usual? That's unfortunate.
 
2012-10-02 01:07:07 AM
Hey, I'm using at least two stamps tomorrow, I got this.
 
2012-10-02 01:44:03 AM
$5.6 billion? That's like ... three weeks of The War Against Terror!
 
2012-10-02 08:29:34 AM

Therion: $5.6 billion? That's like ... three weeks of The War Against Terror!


Yea, USPS should have pushed for more of that sweet homeland defense money when someone was mailing bombs to people.
 
2012-10-02 08:33:05 AM
Well so far it's taken a week for my dryer belt to get from Harrisburg to Philadelphia.. which is about an hour drive.
 
2012-10-02 08:43:33 AM
FTA: "Comprehensive reform of the laws governing the Postal Service is urgently needed in order for the Postal Service to fully implement its five-year business plan and return to long-term financial stability," Donahoe said.

You know who else had a five-year plan?
 
2012-10-02 08:51:25 AM
I send about ten skids of mail a day to USPS so I'm getting a kick out of all this...
 
2012-10-02 09:32:59 AM
So if this needs to be run like a business, Congress will have no problem letting the USPS do the following:

Cut 'unprofitable' rural routes
Restrict days of delivery
Set rates as they see fit without need for any other approval
Used zoned rates for first class mail
 
2012-10-02 09:35:50 AM

wingnut396: So if this needs to be run like a business, Congress will have no problem letting the USPS do the following:

Cut 'unprofitable' rural routes
Restrict days of delivery
Set rates as they see fit without need for any other approval
Used zoned rates for first class mail


No. Although Congress controls all these as well as the overpayments to the pension plan, it is entirely the fault of the USPS and it's workers that they are not thriving. In America only the workers can cause failures of this magnitude.

/Sarcasm Mode off
 
2012-10-02 09:44:14 AM

wingnut396: So if this needs to be run like a business, Congress will have no problem letting the USPS do the following:

Cut 'unprofitable' rural routes
Restrict days of delivery
Set rates as they see fit without need for any other approval
Used zoned rates for first class mail


Actually, I think the current Congress would have absolutely no problem with that. Anything that hastens the collapse of this country, they seem to be in favor of
 
2012-10-02 09:45:26 AM

GAT_00: That's what happens when you're forced to pay 75 years of pensions in 5 years and banned from effectively raising income to pay for it.


Citation please on the 75 years.
Seriously, I've seen that thrown around in articles but nowhere definitive or with actual calculations.

Companies are required to fund their pensions as well. Something like 1/7th of underfunding per year under the pension protection act of 2006 (of course, market movements during that period affect the balance further.)

I'd agree that if the postal service had to prefund obligations for employees that haven't been hired yet, but I really don't think that is the case. I believe they are only funding the projected benefit obligation, just like private companies.
 
2012-10-02 09:45:30 AM

Ambivalence: Gee. When congress imposes ridiculous regulations designed to force failure, failure happens. Color me shocked. But don't you dare limit private enterprise.


Yet I thought we had a "do-nothing" congress and here they went and did something. Granted, the wrong thing, but baby steps I guess.

So the gov't cannot do anything right and is full of failure when they try to be successful; unless their purpose is to cause failure, which they then succeed at.
 
2012-10-02 10:59:49 AM
Thank you, CONGRESS, you stinking sacks of shiat stinking pus.
 
2012-10-02 11:12:23 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: That's what happens when you're forced to pay 75 years of pensions in 5 years and banned from effectively raising income to pay for it.

Citation please on the 75 years.
Seriously, I've seen that thrown around in articles but nowhere definitive or with actual calculations.

Companies are required to fund their pensions as well. Something like 1/7th of underfunding per year under the pension protection act of 2006 (of course, market movements during that period affect the balance further.)

I'd agree that if the postal service had to prefund obligations for employees that haven't been hired yet, but I really don't think that is the case. I believe they are only funding the projected benefit obligation, just like private companies.


Here's the text of the actual bill. See TITLE VIII.
 
2012-10-02 11:52:31 AM
When my mail does not come any more, I'll be thinking of you, Republicans.
 
2012-10-02 12:22:56 PM

KarmicDisaster: When my mail does not come any more, I'll be thinking of you, Republicans.


How much useful mail to you receive via the USPS anyway? How much that couldn't be sent electronically or via UPS/FedEx/etc?
 
2012-10-02 12:23:43 PM

GAT_00: Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: That's what happens when you're forced to pay 75 years of pensions in 5 years and banned from effectively raising income to pay for it.

Citation please on the 75 years.
Seriously, I've seen that thrown around in articles but nowhere definitive or with actual calculations.

Companies are required to fund their pensions as well. Something like 1/7th of underfunding per year under the pension protection act of 2006 (of course, market movements during that period affect the balance further.)

I'd agree that if the postal service had to prefund obligations for employees that haven't been hired yet, but I really don't think that is the case. I believe they are only funding the projected benefit obligation, just like private companies.

Here's the text of the actual bill. See TITLE VIII.


Yeah, I've read that and from my reading it looks like the contributions are to fund obligations that are currently expected on current employees, the same as private companies are required to fund. I can't find any reference to 75 years, however.

I'm open to being set straight on this if I'm wrong and welcome legitimate explanations, but I really think the narrative that pension fund contributions are causing the problems of the postl service is misguided. Shouldn't we want employers to find the pension plans promised to employees?

For what it's worth, there were two democratic co sponsors f the bill, including Waxman.
 
2012-10-02 12:38:29 PM
The postal disservice will lose packages and mangle letters just as they always have.
 
2012-10-02 12:54:57 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: That's what happens when you're forced to pay 75 years of pensions in 5 years and banned from effectively raising income to pay for it.

Citation please on the 75 years.
Seriously, I've seen that thrown around in articles but nowhere definitive or with actual calculations.

Companies are required to fund their pensions as well. Something like 1/7th of underfunding per year under the pension protection act of 2006 (of course, market movements during that period affect the balance further.)

I'd agree that if the postal service had to prefund obligations for employees that haven't been hired yet, but I really don't think that is the case. I believe they are only funding the projected benefit obligation, just like private companies.

Here's the text of the actual bill. See TITLE VIII.

Yeah, I've read that and from my reading it looks like the contributions are to fund obligations that are currently expected on current employees, the same as private companies are required to fund. I can't find any reference to 75 years, however.

I'm open to being set straight on this if I'm wrong and welcome legitimate explanations, but I really think the narrative that pension fund contributions are causing the problems of the postl service is misguided. Shouldn't we want employers to find the pension plans promised to employees?

For what it's worth, there were two democratic co sponsors f the bill, including Waxman.

(3)(A) The United States Postal Service shall pay into such Fund--

`(i) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2007;

`(ii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2008;

`(iii) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2009;

`(iv) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2010;

`(v) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2011;

`(vi) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2012;

`(vii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2013;

`(viii) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2014;

`(ix) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2015; and

`(x) $5,800,000,000, not later than September 30, 2016.


These values are the predicted pension costs for the next 75 years. And I don't care who sponsored it. And for someone to come in here and ignore the actual bill that provides the requirements that are bankrupting them, and then fail to provide any proof for your own assertions while claiming the "narrative" is completely made up is the height of bullshiat. If you don't want to listen to the actual facts and instead exist in your little fantasy land of what REALLY happens, don't ask for the real facts and don't pretend they don't exist.
 
2012-10-02 01:09:15 PM

MugzyBrown: KarmicDisaster: When my mail does not come any more, I'll be thinking of you, Republicans.

How much useful mail to you receive via the USPS anyway? How much that couldn't be sent electronically or via UPS/FedEx/etc?


Aside from Netflix DVDs I get nothing useful from them. My daily trip out to the mailbox also involves a trip to the trash can. I throw away atleast 3 pieces of mail a day. Today it was 5 pieces.
 
2012-10-02 01:38:29 PM

GAT_00: Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: That's what happens when you're forced to pay 75 years of pensions in 5 years and banned from effectively raising income to pay for it.

Citation please on the 75 years.
Seriously, I've seen that thrown around in articles but nowhere definitive or with actual calculations.

Companies are required to fund their pensions as well. Something like 1/7th of underfunding per year under the pension protection act of 2006 (of course, market movements during that period affect the balance further.)

I'd agree that if the postal service had to prefund obligations for employees that haven't been hired yet, but I really don't think that is the case. I believe they are only funding the projected benefit obligation, just like private companies.

Here's the text of the actual bill. See TITLE VIII.

Yeah, I've read that and from my reading it looks like the contributions are to fund obligations that are currently expected on current employees, the same as private companies are required to fund. I can't find any reference to 75 years, however.

I'm open to being set straight on this if I'm wrong and welcome legitimate explanations, but I really think the narrative that pension fund contributions are causing the problems of the postl service is misguided. Shouldn't we want employers to find the pension plans promised to employees?

For what it's worth, there were two democratic co sponsors f the bill, including Waxman.

(3)(A) The United States Postal Service shall pay into such Fund--

`(i) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2007;

`(ii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2008;

`(iii) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2009;

`(iv) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2010;

`(v) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2011;

`(vi) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2012;

`(vii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2013;

`(viii) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2014;

`(ix) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2015; and

`(x) $5,800,000,000, not later than September 30, 2016.


These values are the predicted pension costs for the next 75 years. And I don't care who sponsored it. And for someone to come in here and ignore the actual bill that provides the requirements that are bankrupting them, and then fail to provide any proof for your own assertions while claiming the "narrative" is completely made up is the height of bullshiat. If you don't want to listen to the actual facts and instead exist in your little fantasy land of what REALLY happens, don't ask for the real facts and don't pretend they don't exist.


Why do you attribute those amounts to 75 years? Where does the 75 years come from? You still havent identified where that number comes from.

From what i see in the bill, those amounts you cite are to cover benefits already earned and promised to retirees. The post retirement benefit plans were underfunded and these mandatory contributions are to fund those obligations. I don't see what is so controversial about requiring an entity to fund the pension and OPEB benefits earned by employees. The alternative is just to pass the buck to the future. I'd think that someone who was looking out for the best interests of employees and pensioners would want the employer to actually put something away to pay for benefits promised.
 
2012-10-02 01:55:00 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: From what i see in the bill, those amounts you cite are to cover benefits already earned and promised to retirees. The post retirement benefit plans were underfunded and these mandatory contributions are to fund those obligations. I don't see what is so controversial about requiring an entity to fund the pension and OPEB benefits earned by employees. The alternative is just to pass the buck to the future. I'd think that someone who was looking out for the best interests of employees and pensioners would want the employer to actually put something away to pay for benefits promised.


A quick Google search of "how long must USPS prefund pension" returned this. YMMV.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service_s_Finan ce s
 
2012-10-02 02:01:18 PM

Night Night Cream Puff: Debeo Summa Credo: From what i see in the bill, those amounts you cite are to cover benefits already earned and promised to retirees. The post retirement benefit plans were underfunded and these mandatory contributions are to fund those obligations. I don't see what is so controversial about requiring an entity to fund the pension and OPEB benefits earned by employees. The alternative is just to pass the buck to the future. I'd think that someone who was looking out for the best interests of employees and pensioners would want the employer to actually put something away to pay for benefits promised.

A quick Google search of "how long must USPS prefund pension" returned this. YMMV.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service_s_Finan ce s


He doesn't want that. What he wants is the bill to be rewritten so it's clearer to him and until it is, he won't accept anything.
 
2012-10-02 02:04:28 PM
Why the hell would you give money to people who aren't working? Cut them off.
 
2012-10-02 02:15:15 PM

Night Night Cream Puff: Debeo Summa Credo: From what i see in the bill, those amounts you cite are to cover benefits already earned and promised to retirees. The post retirement benefit plans were underfunded and these mandatory contributions are to fund those obligations. I don't see what is so controversial about requiring an entity to fund the pension and OPEB benefits earned by employees. The alternative is just to pass the buck to the future. I'd think that someone who was looking out for the best interests of employees and pensioners would want the employer to actually put something away to pay for benefits promised.

A quick Google search of "how long must USPS prefund pension" returned this. YMMV.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service_s_Finan ce s


Thank you. Good link. Here is a similar piece where they interview Issa to get the other side:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432/The_Truth_About_The_Post_Office_s_Fi na ncial_Mess

Now, I know nobody here will consider Issa a reliable source. He's a Republican and a particularly douchebaggy one at that. But we shouldn't take the word of the head of the postal employee union either. His motiviation is to maintain saturday delivery, keep unneeded post offices open, prevent cost cutting, etc.

The CNBC piece itself states that the 75 year issue is not correct.

Some people have even claimed that law has the effect of requiring the postal service to fund retirement obligations for people who are not yet employed by the USPS--potential future employees.

No one ever intended the law to work that way. And, in fact, it doesn't. Although accounting rules require the postal service to calculate future liabilities, including those for projected future employees, the law only requires pre-funding of obligations to actual current and past employees.


Someone upthread suggested cutting saturday delivery and eliminating rural routes as a way to keep the postal service solvent. I agree - cost cutting is obviously necessary. Also, I don't know how much restriction was placed by congress on rates, also mentioned upthread. The postal service should be able to raise rates to levels necessary to survive. But that can end up in a negative feedback loop. Raising stamps from 45 cents to 55 cents will raise revenue, but it will decrease the amount of mail sent.

I think congress, by requiring funding of pension and OPEB liabilities, was trying to get ahead of the issue that the postal service is adversely affected by a secular change - physical mail is decreasing in importance, and will continue to do so. If/when it reaches a point where the postal service cannot continue on an independent basis, what would happen to retirees unfunded pension and OPEB obligations? Would the retirees be SOL or would the taxpayer have to bail them out? Either result is bad.
 
2012-10-02 02:16:18 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: That's what happens when you're forced to pay 75 years of pensions in 5 years and banned from effectively raising income to pay for it.

Citation please on the 75 years.
Seriously, I've seen that thrown around in articles but nowhere definitive or with actual calculations.

Companies are required to fund their pensions as well. Something like 1/7th of underfunding per year under the pension protection act of 2006 (of course, market movements during that period affect the balance further.)

I'd agree that if the postal service had to prefund obligations for employees that haven't been hired yet, but I really don't think that is the case. I believe they are only funding the projected benefit obligation, just like private companies.

Here's the text of the actual bill. See TITLE VIII.

Yeah, I've read that and from my reading it looks like the contributions are to fund obligations that are currently expected on current employees, the same as private companies are required to fund. I can't find any reference to 75 years, however.

I'm open to being set straight on this if I'm wrong and welcome legitimate explanations, but I really think the narrative that pension fund contributions are causing the problems of the postl service is misguided. Shouldn't we want employers to find the pension plans promised to employees?

For what it's worth, there were two democratic co sponsors f the bill, including Waxman.

(3)(A) The United States Postal Service shall pay into such Fund--

`(i) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2007;

`(ii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2008;

`(iii) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2009;

`(iv) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2010;

`(v) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2011;

`(vi) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2012;

`(vii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2013;

...


Because no other business or government entity has ever been forced to pre-fund retirement benefits 100% in such a short time. The USPS was not allowed to raise rates, cut service, or hell even close a lot of facilities with out congressional approval, which they are not giving, but are being forced to make these payments.

Oh and one other thing in 2006 the Bush administration suspended payments into these Federal benefits plans and applied the money directly to the wars. This was a sneaky way to cover up the whole in the Federal pension and medical benefits plan. The Federal pension system has about a trillion dollar unfunded liability and probably will go bankrupt some time around 2035, leaving tens of millions of retirees with partial benefits and payouts.
 
2012-10-02 02:38:31 PM
Slaves2Darkness:
Because no other business or government entity has ever been forced to pre-fund retirement benefits 100% in such a short time. The USPS was not allowed to raise rates, cut service, or hell even close a lot of facilities with out congressional approval, which they are not giving, but are being forced to make these payments.

Okay, good response. FWIW, corporations are required to fund pension deficits over 7 years, however I don't think there is mandatory funding of other post retirement benefits. I still don't disagree with the pre-funding at USPS. We should encourage or require that out of any agency/company, but particularly an organization like the USPS which will be a dinosaur in a couple decades.

Rate hikes, service cuts, and facility closures should definitely be on the menu. but I think you'll find that most of the people complaining about mandatory funding of benefit obligations causing issues are arguing that because they DON't want service cuts. The postal union would prefer to keep Saturday delivery, etc. and just put off funding retirement benefits for some future time.

Oh and one other thing in 2006 the Bush administration suspended payments into these Federal benefits plans and applied the money directly to the wars. This was a sneaky way to cover up the whole in the Federal pension and medical benefits plan. The Federal pension system has about a trillion dollar unfunded liability and probably will go bankrupt some time around 2035, leaving tens of millions of retirees with partial benefits and payouts.

I have no way of confirming or denying what you are saying, but it sounds like a good reason to require mandatory funding of all these other federal benefit plans. If you are correct and we don't fund, by 2035 those retirees will be farked. Postal retirees, however, will not be farked because their benefits were required to be funded by the 2006 law.
 
2012-10-02 03:20:59 PM

macdaddy357: The postal disservice will lose packages and mangle letters just as they always have.


It really amazes me how a flat, stiff envelope can get from Germany, say, to me here in San Francisco practically unscathed, and then my asshole mailman folds it in half to fit it in the letterbox. LEAVE IT IN THE BLOODY LOBBY, you farkwit.
 
2012-10-02 03:41:57 PM

GAT_00: That's what happens when you're forced to pay 75 years of pensions in 5 years and banned from effectively raising income to pay for it.


Pretty much this.
 
2012-10-02 04:14:26 PM
Is this the same post office that's supposed to be a private business but Republicans won't let implement cost-saving measures, because if the post office is actually profitable they won't be able to collect on their UPS/FEDEX investment?
 
2012-10-02 04:16:48 PM

KarmicDisaster: When my mail does not come any more, I'll be thinking of you, Republicans.


You're welcome. I am tired of all the junk mail too.
 
2012-10-02 04:18:05 PM
I would like to cancel my mail service.
 
2012-10-02 04:22:32 PM

Intrepid00: I would like to cancel my mail service.


Nobody makes you check your mail. Take some personal responsibility for a change.
 
2012-10-02 04:26:29 PM

ghare: Intrepid00: I would like to cancel my mail service.

Nobody makes you check your mail. Take some personal responsibility for a change.


Actually I didn't check mine for a week and the mailman left me a nasty note in all capitals to check my mail. At least he doesn't stuff my box full of flyers anymore not actually addressed to me and uses the junk mail bin.
 
2012-10-02 04:32:37 PM

gunther_bumpass: macdaddy357: The postal disservice will lose packages and mangle letters just as they always have.

It really amazes me how a flat, stiff envelope can get from Germany, say, to me here in San Francisco practically unscathed, and then my asshole mailman folds it in half to fit it in the letterbox. LEAVE IT IN THE BLOODY LOBBY, you farkwit.


Many years ago I had someone mail me a CD. It wouldn't fit in my PO box but instead of taking my mail and putting it in one of the special oversized mailboxes. They folded it and slid it in. That's right, they successfully folded and broke a CD.

Granted the guy who sent it to me was an idiot who didn't put it in a mailer. But still. STUPID!
 
2012-10-02 04:34:51 PM

BizarreMan: gunther_bumpass: macdaddy357: The postal disservice will lose packages and mangle letters just as they always have.

It really amazes me how a flat, stiff envelope can get from Germany, say, to me here in San Francisco practically unscathed, and then my asshole mailman folds it in half to fit it in the letterbox. LEAVE IT IN THE BLOODY LOBBY, you farkwit.

Many years ago I had someone mail me a CD. It wouldn't fit in my PO box but instead of taking my mail and putting it in one of the special oversized mailboxes. They folded it and slid it in. That's right, they successfully folded and broke a CD.

Granted the guy who sent it to me was an idiot who didn't put it in a mailer. But still. STUPID!


"Man this is really hard to fold, I probably should stop but fark it." - is the USPS.
 
2012-10-02 04:57:19 PM

ghare: Is this the same post office that's supposed to be a private business but Republicans won't let implement cost-saving measures, because if the post office is actually profitable they won't be able to collect on their UPS/FEDEX investment?


Are you sure it's the republicans not allowing them to implement cost saving measures? How do you think the postal unions feel about cost savings?
 
2012-10-02 05:09:55 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Because no other business or government entity has ever been forced to pre-fund retirement benefits 100% in such a short time. The USPS was not allowed to raise rates, cut service, or hell even close a lot of facilities with out congressional approval, which they are not giving, but are being forced to make these payments.



Forced does not mean that companies don't prefund, about a 1/4 companies prefund that expense. An employee is promised health care after they retire, an organization estimates what that will cost. You can either actually fund what you have promised or not show anything until that person retires. Now most of us would consider an IOU to be a debt and that should be accounted for but common sense doesn't always make it into law. The USPS has over half a million employees most of which will retire and will be provided with health care, the USPS was not accounting for the cost that they owed to current employees and would only fund when someone actually left. This is sustainable in a growing environment, but with declining mail volume in the future the USPS would have even a harder time funding the health care cost.
Even today they are going to post a $15 billion loss of which only $11 billion is the healthcare issue. What will happen in 10 years when the USPS has even less volume and revenue and the health care fund is empty too. Then either the USPS workers can go without benefits or the tax payer will pick up the bill.

Sorry but I'd prefer the USPS to fund it's own employees, or make the necessary cuts needed to become sustainable. I'd also prefer the USPS not to sell my name and address to advertisers so I can get even more junk mail, which btw is one of the strategies they have to become sustainable.

We don't live in the 1800 or 1900s. Postal mail is not what is was in the past, newer forms of media have taken over. Newspapers that were as vital to the country and predate the mail system have undergone massive changes in the past decade, consolidations and reduced delivery days. They still exist but have had to adapt to the current market. The USPS needs to do the same, ADAPT. The USPS needs to focus on the core business of delivering mail, rather than do this they are trying to diversify and use those profits to subsidize the postal delivery operation. Like newspapers cut delivery days, not from 6 to 5. Rural and residential go to 3 days (every other day), commercial in higher density areas can be every day as to not impact commerce. Conservative estimate says you cuts routes by a 3rd, that means the USPS needs 1/3 less carriers, mail trucks, and fuel for the trucks. Since labor is about 80% of the USPS cost that alone would be a massive savings. The net impact to the average American would be little to none, the USPS would be sustainable and there would be basically no impact to mail volume.
 
2012-10-02 06:55:45 PM

BizarreMan: gunther_bumpass: macdaddy357: The postal disservice will lose packages and mangle letters just as they always have.

It really amazes me how a flat, stiff envelope can get from Germany, say, to me here in San Francisco practically unscathed, and then my asshole mailman folds it in half to fit it in the letterbox. LEAVE IT IN THE BLOODY LOBBY, you farkwit.

Many years ago I had someone mail me a CD. It wouldn't fit in my PO box but instead of taking my mail and putting it in one of the special oversized mailboxes. They folded it and slid it in. That's right, they successfully folded and broke a CD.

Granted the guy who sent it to me was an idiot who didn't put it in a mailer. But still. STUPID!


The only thing more irritating than the post office are the people that can't pack worth a damn.
Fragile object? Fark it, throw a handful of packing peanuts in there and it's good to go!

(and packing peanuts.. farking don't get me started)

Old poster? Better put it in the thinnest envelope possible along with the back of a cereal box. That'll keep it safe.

Electronics should rattle around and be packed so one side of the box is
far heavier than the other. Don't want the box to act predictably when it's set on a shelf.
That'll give The Clowns In Brown (ups) something to kick around while taking a break in
the back of the truck.

I had some farkwad send me an LP that was dropped into an envelope next to the album cover.
Thankfully the vinyl saved the cover from being scratched when the postal jackoff slammed it into
the corner of his farking pointed head.

Farking assholes. It's shipping, not rocket appliances.
 
2012-10-02 07:55:40 PM

Intrepid00: I would like to cancel my mail service.


Now you want your mail, dontcha Mr. Kramer?
 
2012-10-02 10:47:12 PM
dang, please don't fail USPS. It's hella nice selling stuff on ebay to Europeans and only paying $6 for shipping,, and $2.15 in the US
 
2012-10-02 10:55:55 PM
Has anyone looked at the price to send a letter through UPS or FedEx? I am just curious at what the cost difference between USPS and the other carries is.
 
2012-10-03 01:39:11 AM

MugzyBrown: KarmicDisaster: When my mail does not come any more, I'll be thinking of you, Republicans.

How much useful mail to you receive via the USPS anyway? How much that couldn't be sent electronically or via UPS/FedEx/etc?


I send 1,600+ packages from my business per year. For roughly 2/3rd of UPS rate and twice to three times as fast

/luvs USPS Priority Flat Rate Boxes...
 
2012-10-03 02:53:21 AM
I'm rather fond of the USPS. My postman is really nice, and I always use the priority boxes to mail. Everything gets to their destination in 1-2 days for an affordable price, which I find amazing and convenient. I've only had one problem in the last 10 years, though, when one of my packages from my parents arrived damaged, with the books they sent me missing and a smaller package of a DVD inside that was addressed to someone else. I personally delivered the guy's DVD and never saw my books, but was willing to write it off as a one time freak occurrence since it was impossible to determine if the incident occurred on the sending end or the receiving end or somewhere in between.

In any case, performance and quality varies greatly depending on your local branch and delivery guys. I'm sorry if some people got stuck with a lazy or stupid driver but that doesn't mean the whole program is worthless.
 
2012-10-03 07:13:38 AM
This was bound to happen sooner or later. Congress put a burden that they knew that the usps was not able to fulfill. Along with that, they are forced to subsidize their private competitors.
 
2012-10-03 01:52:44 PM

stainedglassdoll: I'm rather fond of the USPS.


So is the constitution. By the way, there's nothing wrong with mandating the USPS pre-fund their pension obligations.
What's at issue is the aggressive schedule.
 
2012-10-04 11:00:20 AM
MugzyBrown

Well so far it's taken a week for my dryer belt to get from Harrisburg to Philadelphia.. which is about an hour drive.

An hour?? Jebus. How fast are you driving???

//Oh you mean without traffic and construction.
///So sorry, carry on.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report