The USPS has built an operation centered around delivering direct marketing (snail mail spam) as its primary function, with other deliveries from bills to packages as a very secondary one. Trying to transition from that to delivering this many packages without increasing its workforce...well, it's an amazing example of the pointy-headed boss approach that's the bane of both the private and public sector. "We've finally gotten revenues ahead of expenses! ...What do mean, there's too much work to do?"
USPS has a mandate to deliver mail to the masses as a universal sevice, and direct mail is one way to try to subsidize that mandate. When letter volume was higher, the letter delivery business could be viable on its own.
USPS is in a legislative straitjacket when it comes to offering new and competitive services to consumers and small businesses, nevermind the crazy amounts they're bbeing required to contribute to their pension plan: http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2012/03/postal-account...
The labor market is like any other, and is one of the most competitive markets really. Being "loyal" and staying at the same company through hard times really is doing yourself, the economy, and the company a disservice.
If USPS can't survive in those conditions, let them go bankrupt and let other companies rise to fill their place, possibly bidding to get the same government benefits USPS had.
They're a bandage for the labor market having a surpless of supply and insufficient mobility.
Both of those the government could fix. Surpless of supply can be solved by carefully regulating immigration and encouraging emmigration. Insufficient mobility is harder to fix, but requiring employers to not employ the same person for more than 200 days per year could force people to try out for other jobs. If everyone had two jobs, they could scale up and down the number of hours at each job to get the best pay/conditions. That's far better than collective bargaining.
Long term employment contracts, and benefits based on tenure should be banned too. That's just employers trying to reduce mobility.
I'd quite like to see daily labor auctions. Where the employer "bids" for how much they're willing to pay today, and employees select where they'll go to work (or stay home) based on today's bids. Christmas day would suddenly get very expensive.
Some types of employment require specific knowledge or training. In those cases, the employer shall have to provide a list of people who have said training, and the list should have to be significantly larger than the number of people working at that place on any given day to ensure the "training" requirement doesn't prevent mobility.
"regulating immigration and encouraging eMigration". Really? So let's the brilliant people go to other countries bringing their knowledge somewhere else?
Brilliant.
> "I'd quite like to see daily labor auctions. Where the employer "bids" for how much they're willing to pay today, and employees select where they'll go to work (or stay home) based on today's bids. Christmas day would suddenly get very expensive."
Sure, just wait until all employers bid the same for the same level jobs, at that point emploees don't have other choice than to accept anything.
what does surpless mean? At first I though it was a mispelling of "surplus" but you wrote it twice...
Crazy. What surprises me the most is the fact that the USPS receives no federal funding. With a budget of even $5 Billion, the issues highlighted here could be solved or drastically reduced.
And I suppose you also think that Social Security is completely self funding as well?
The USPS has borrowed up to the max legal limit from the government. (currently somewhere upwards of $15b in debt.) The government has to continually increase that debt limit to keep it from folding.
They also enjoy a government imposed monopoly on delivering mail to mailboxes, pay no taxes, vehicle license fees, parking fines, nor market rate interest on their debt load.
It's not that amazing. Borrowing from the government with no end in sight is the same thing as "getting money from the government."
Umm, not sure what social security has to do with this? Nor do I understand the condescension in your tone.
However,
> pay no taxes, vehicle license fees, parking fines
These all make perfect sense to me. How __else__ do you expect mail to be delivered even moderately efficiently?
> government monopoly
Only on first-class mail, first of all. Second of all, if you read tfa you'd realize that a mandate for maintaining a government-run post office is literally in the damn constitution. Are you also upset that there are government monopolies on the judiciary and declaring war?
I was merely pointing out that they do in fact receive federal funding. The comparison to social security was because SS uses the same wordplay to claim it is self funded as well. But in actuality, federal tax money is keeping both programs alive.
And it's not just first class mail that has a monopoly. It's all/any mail that is placed in a residential mailbox.
>Are you also upset that there are government monopolies on the judiciary and declaring war?
Huh? Those make complete sense to be government monopolies. It doesn't make much sense that the federal government can bar a private company from placing a letter or small package in my mailbox, that I paid for and installed at my own expense.
The goal of our current laws are to starve USPS of funds, which results in these awful working conditions. We need to repeal the restrictions on USPS offering a broader range of services, and not force them by law to massively overfund their retirement benefits.
>...and not force them by law to massively overfund their retirement benefits.
It sounds like the change in law was to have the USPS start funding their retirement health care costs since they are promised to the workers and the projected costs had exploded:
>...Although retiree health benefits are often unfunded or poorly funded, two considerations suggested the Service’s retiree health care obligations should be funded: they are as firm a commitment as the Service’s pensions, and they had become enormous (about $75 billion by 2006). In 2003, the presidential commission suggested establishing a reserve fund for these obligations, and the Postal Service itself sent Congress a proposal for creating such a fund.
>Prior to 2006, the Service simply paid retirees’ health benefit premiums when they came due. The Service put aside no money when it promised the future benefits. Paying benefits when they come due rather than funding them in advance is known as the pay-as-you-go or unfunded approach.
>Early this century, Congress, the Administration, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), and a bipartisan presidential commission expressed concern about the lack of funding. Although retiree health benefits are often unfunded or poorly funded, two considerations suggested the Service’s retiree health care obligations should be funded: they are as firm a commitment as the Service’s pensions, and they had become enormous (about $75 billion by 2006). In 2003, the presidential commission suggested establishing a reserve fund for these obligations, and the Postal Service itself sent Congress a proposal for creating such a fund.
>In 2002-2003, it was discovered that the Service was contributing far more than necessary to fully fund its pensions, and Congress allowed the Service to contribute less. Congress decided the pension “savings” could help patch the retiree health benefit underfunding. In 2006, as part of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), the Postal Service Retirement Health Benefits Fund (RHBF) was established. Most of the Service’s contributions to the new fund could be paid using the pension “savings.” PAEA was bipartisan legislation with broad support.
This has been discussed on HN before. I thought their pensions were not being overfunded, just funded to the degree a private company ought to. How much are they being overfunded by?
The world’s largest e-commerce company said third-quarter operating income will surge to as much as $2.4 billion, compared with the average analyst estimate of $1.28 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Second-quarter profit came in at a record $2.53 billion, or $5.07 per share, more than double analysts’ forecasts. The shares rose 4.1 percent in extended trading.