US Post Office.....what is really going on?

[jonny5]

FYI, I have some friends who works for them. That doesn't seem to be the case. It's a pretty weak union, and doesn't do much. There is a no strike policy, and people are not overly paid. The benefits aren't even as good as many corporations with no unions. The postal service supports itself just fine except for the billions annually congress decided to extort from them. The postal service doesn't cost tax payers anything.

Thats a myth. If you look at the USPS financial statement youll see direct loans and capital transfers from the general govt.

83 million in recievables from US govt
3.3bn total in capital contributions

http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/financial-conditions-results-reports/fy2013-q3.pdf

The simple fact is we dont need it anymore. The priority of the federal govt is to defend our lives and freedom, not transport mail.

 

[jonny5]

Does anyone here propose we privatize the postal system? If so, how would you transfer the money already paid over the decades into the pension system?

Not privatize, just shut it down, sell all assets. If the pension is actual cash in an acct, transfer it to employee retirement accts. If its promised benefits from future revenue, I guess the taxpayers will have to pay it.

 

[ocean515]

Now let's put this into perspective. My voice compared to the voice of well funded think tanks. Who here has more influence on policy???? The post office does fund its own pensions. That's not the position.

Who has more influence? I would think the answer is obvious. However, your opinion is shared by equally by opposing well funded think tanks, so I'm having difficulty making the connection you're trying to make.

In fact, given the overwhelming influence of public sector unions, I'd suggest there is a greater argument against anyone trying to put the Post Office out of business, than there is for.

Again, reading through the logic applied to the USPS pension funding requirement, I can't see where this policy doesn't make sense. To have not required front loaded pension funding would have been to have taxpayers pay for the unilateral decisions of people taxpayers had no say in hiring, or overseeing.

 

[ocean515]

That's a question you'd have to ask your Congressman.

Since it won't be rectified until 2056, and since the only people "covered" by the Fed are the people who worked with the POD pre-1971, people would have to be over 100 years old to be any concern at all to the Fed. Even if a few lone people survive that long it sure isn't going to be a strain on any budget and certainly not to the tune of $55 billion.

That's not what the analysis I've seen suggests.

If what you write is true, the question remains. Why did they do it?

Since you are unable to offer any thinking towards the answer, or even a guess, whatever the motivation, I don't see much basis for your condemnation of the policy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Considering the calculations are basically made on the assumption that anyone working for the POD as of the switch in 1971 would get $0.00 pay increases in the years ahead, yes, I think it's unreasonable.


But more to the point, why did the 2006 Act insist on the USPS paying out ~$5.5 billion per year to the health fund over ten years, which won't be balanced out until 2056? Paying out "future benefits" for 50 years in a 10 year span would put strain on any business, especially one that is non-profit. These payments are not part of the question of the government's liability for USPS employees and I think it was irresponsible of Congress to expect the USPS to meet requirements no other business or government entity is required to meet.

USPS mail volume peaked in 2006 and no reasonable person expects that downward trend to stop in the age of the internet/smartphone and electronic bill paying. One only need look at Detroit to see what "waiting until things get better" does for funding pension plans.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

More automated machines means less workers.

And no paychecks or benefits. I'm not sure there is a company anywhere they couldn't save money by eliminating 300,000 positions!

 

[Lord of Planar]

And no paychecks or benefits. I'm not sure there is a company anywhere they couldn't save money by eliminating 300,000 positions!

Well, working with automation myself, I can say this. Sometimes the parts and maintenance can be very costly itself, especially if there becomes some unforeseen repeat problem that is expensive to repair.