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

[iliveonramen]

Arguing for it like that makes it nothing but a welfare program and makes me even less inclined to care for its existence.

Well it depends on if you think there's a need for universal postal service period. If so...yes it's worth it. Just like the need for a universal defense system. It's a pretty loose use of welfare in my opinion.

 

[ocean515]

LOL...

So pay increases that don't amount to any more than anyone else gets, shouldn't be considered?

I'm not sure there was any reference in documentation I've read that state pay increases that didn't amount to any more than anyone else gets shouldn't be considered.

From what I can gather it seems the point was to make sure they understood there were consequences to the pay increases they approved, and they were going to have to keep those consequences in mind when considering the union demands.

If you have some other reference, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[specklebang]

Do UPS and FedEx have to fund 75 years of pension payments in ten years?
Apparently, that is THE source of the USPS's losses.

Given that otherwise the USPS would have turned a profit, it seems that you should find another reason to rail against the USPS other than problems w/ it's business model.

It seems that by that logic, FedEx, UPS and DHL are also "useless" because one can send things via USPS.

Yet, it seems that they actually turned a profit except for the peculiar pension funding model foisted on them by Congress. Maybe the answer is to get Congress out of the mix.

This response is not being shot from the hip. I've read about this in the past and I just went and read several articles discussing this matter.

First, I'm not "railing" against the USPS. I'm railing against the dysfunctional aspects of the USPS.

I'm no genius and I am not motivated by politics. After all, criticism of the USPS business model isn't something that exposes either party in particular. It is a problem and congress is a great impediment to solving problems. I am a life-long businessman however and to me it seems the problem is the USPS renders too much service for too little net income. I believe that if the USPS did not have to fund 10 years worth of pensions let alone 75 years worth, they still can not make enough money to particularly justify their existence as it is now.

If I bought the USPS tomorrow for $1.00 and it was debt-free on purchase (like Chrysler sort of) I can not imagine offering to deliver a letter from NYC to BFE for 46¢, 6 days a week no less. I also would (probably) not undercut UPS (or similar) by 50% and still operate in the black. So, yes, take congress out of the mix, hand it to Specklebang and you'll get to send a letter to Aunt Rosie for $1.00 and she can pick her letter up at one of my SPS (Spoecklkebang Postal Services) station Monday thru Friday. If you want SPS to deliver the letter to Aunt Rosie's doorway, that will cost you another $2.00. If you want Aunt Rosie to be able to pick up or receive delivery of or send a letter to you on Saturday, you'll have a smaller number of SPS locations for that and there will be a $1 surcharge for Saturday. So you will have to invest $1.00 to $3.00 to boast to Aunt Rosie of your promotion to head housekeeper.

If you want to send a package, I'll cheerfully undercut UPS by 25%, not 50%.

Now that I'm offering almost the same results at these still bearable prices, I will take all the past USPS employees and I will fund their SS accounts with enough to put them in the SS system at the highest level. That means that Specklebang, Mitt Romney and Joe "Going Postal" MacGruder will all get the same check when they retire, just like anyone else who worked and paid in.

Since you (congress or DP) were kind enough to choose me to do this, I will pay myself a nice salary, say $449K, $1K less than the President Of The United States and any of my excess profits will pay taxes at the normal rates plus any excess beyond that I will hand over to Ben Bersnakey to fund his bankers in the stock market or pay China a few bucks.

See, problem solved. Nobody lost their job, everybody can retire like a normal person, UPS won't fold up since they're faster than me and we can all live happily ever after.

Well, you'd think so but, hey, this is Congress we're talking about. If I read right (I just kind of skimmed it) the appointments to the Board are six year and have to be approved by the Senate - and we all know how appointments have been (not) handled by the Senate these past 4+ years.

Congress is a useless organization whose members concerns are with re-election and personal profit. As the old saying goes, these jerks could **** up a wet dream. This is a problem that has obvious solutions and should not even be in their hands. Instead, maybe they could work on appointments to things that SPS can't handle like management positions at the BATFE so we don't have any more genius moves like Fast & Furious. Some things are better left alone and some things require focus.

 

[ocean515]

Do you believe everything the GAO says?

I most certainly don't. Look at how wrong they are at times.

I appreciate your view of the GAO. However, what if this is one of those times they are right?

 

[ocean515]

Tell me.

How much is the government's unfunded liability for federal workers?

Where is the lockbox or fund?

The USPS is a pretty small amount. This is just a money grab, and the so=called separate USPS retirement fund is still unfunded. At least the USPS used to have an actual pool of money congress confiscated and spent.

You know, it's been some time since I looked into any figures related to unfunded liabilities for federal workers. I know in California the amount for state public employees varies between @ $200 billion up to $500 billion, depending on who is doing the calculating.

As to the lock box, of course, that is a laughable concept. Last I looked into it, it appeared to be a file cabinet in D.C. containing in effect, I.O.U.'s.

I'm no expert on the matter, but it seems to me, as the USPS began the long predicted slide into relative oblivion, forcing reality onto management and workers was not necessarily a bad decision. Painful? No doubt.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I appreciate your view of the GAO. However, what if this is one of those times they are right?

Even if they are, the constitution specifically addresses a "post office." It is one of the few things we should spend tax dollars on if necessary.

However...

I do not believe political bodies of people, any farther than I can throw them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm no expert on the matter, but it seems to me, as the USPS began the long predicted slide into relative oblivion, forcing reality onto management and workers was not necessarily a bad decision. Painful? No doubt.

Yep.

One of my friends is a automation repair technician at a mail processing center. In the last 5 years, they have relocated equipment in the building and added more from 3 surrounding facilities that have closed. They now have more than 1.5 million BTU's of heat to shed when they are running the equipment, and the building AC wasn't meant for that much.

 

[ocean515]

Even if they are, the constitution specifically addresses a "post office." It is one of the few things we should spend tax dollars on if necessary.

However...

I do not believe political bodies of people, any farther than I can throw them.

I think we would both be trying to outdo each other for distance.

As I see it, the problem with the post office is that is it like any other monolithic government operation. It operates by momentum rather than mission. Based on conversations I've had recently with someone in a position to know, it would appear that type of thinking has been radically changed.

The post office could have been part of the technological revolution in secure and important communication, but their girth has caused them to demand people purchase buggy whips to rally their cars forward. Worst of all, they want to be able to demand we pay for them to do that.

That's unfortunate.

 

[ocean515]

Yep.

One of my friends is a automation repair technician at a mail processing center. In the last 5 years, they have relocated equipment in the building and added more from 3 surrounding facilities that have closed. They now have more than 1.5 million BTU's of heat to shed when they are running the equipment, and the building AC wasn't meant for that much.

The waterfall effect for all to suffer through. The USPS has annouced the closing of a main facility in my neck of the woods. It's a massive facility that serves a large part of the south western part of Los Angeles County. It's amazing to me to think that facility is redundant? Many people will be forced out of a job. Not good.

There is no question mailing a letter is one of the best deals on the planet. A remarkable feat. But something has got to give.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think we would both be trying to outdo each other for distance.

As I see it, the problem with the post office is that is it like any other monolithic government operation. It operates by momentum rather than mission. Based on conversations I've had recently with someone in a position to know, it would appear that type of thinking has been radically changed.

The post office could have been part of the technological revolution in secure and important communication, but their girth has caused them to demand people purchase buggy whips to rally their cars forward. Worst of all, they want to be able to demand we pay for them to do that.

That's unfortunate.

Well, people like to use mail still. I am one myself who never uses email except for work related requirement. Besides sending things like birthday and Christmas cards, legal requirements have 1st class mail as one type of notification. Most people like things that are tangible, and not only electronic.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The waterfall effect for all to suffer through. The USPS has annouced the closing of a main facility in my neck of the woods. It's a massive facility that serves a large part of the south western part of Los Angeles County. It's amazing to me to think that facility is redundant? Many people will be forced out of a job. Not good.

There is no question mailing a letter is one of the best deals on the planet. A remarkable feat. But something has got to give.

Well, it isn't redundant. It's just becoming less localized. I don't understand how this becomes a cost savings. They gain a little efficiency in processing, but now more of the mail has to be driven farther distances to the carriers. They save the rent of one building, move people and equipment, pay more in fuel, and pay the same in power costs anyway.

I'm told one possibility is they may go to 24/7 route processing and reduce equipment, and delay the mail another day.

 

[ocean515]

Well, it isn't redundant. It's just becoming less localized. I don't understand how this becomes a cost savings. They gain a little efficiency in processing, but now more of the mail has to be driven farther distances to the carriers. They save the rent of one building, move people and equipment, pay more in fuel, and pay the same in power costs anyway.

I'm told one possibility is they may go to 24/7 route processing and reduce equipment, and delay the mail another day.

I think you're more accurate in your view of the facility. More localized. And certainly more focused. I don't envy the job of trying to tame the beast and keep it viable.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I appreciate that you don't think anyone has adequately explained what you term the overblown actuarial methodology applied to funding the USPS Pension program.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the line about the government being held responsible for the unilateral pay and benefits action of the USPS seems to be at the base of what they have done.

Another sentence that caught my eye in the GAO's summary was this.

"The key impacts of transferring assets out of the CSRS fund to USPS based on
the current proposals would be to increase the federal government's current and
future unfunded pension liability by an estimated $56 billion to $85 billion."

Again, looking at what was written about the actions of Congress to separate the USPS from the federal government, it seems reasonable the USPS should be held liable, and not assume the US taxpayer the ultimate backer of their unilateral pay and benefit decisions.

If transfering assets back to the USPS results in the federal government being exposed to an increased liability for unfunded pensions to the tune of $56 to $85 billion, is the method overblown?

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.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Do UPS and FedEx have to fund 75 years of pension payments in ten years?
Apparently, that is THE source of the USPS's losses.

Given that otherwise the USPS would have turned a profit, it seems that you should find another reason to rail against the USPS other than problems w/ it's business model.

Actually, on doing a little research, it only looks like 50 years - but still.

I had heard the same thing as you before looking and I'd really like to know where that 75 year rumor came from.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Usually government services have to prove their worth, not the other way around.

They do, every day. I just got some books from Amazon shipped FedEx - except the last leg of the trip from downtown to here, was USPS. :lol:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Arguing for it like that makes it nothing but a welfare program and makes me even less inclined to care for its existence.

There are no taxpayers dollars involved, just taxpayer oversight. Get a clue.

 

[Henrin]

There are no taxpayers dollars involved, just taxpayer oversight. Get a clue.

His argument was shaped around how it makes the life of poor people easier. That basically means I have to deal with endless junk mail just so poor people get something cheaper.

 

[MoSurveyor]

His argument was shaped around how it makes the life of poor people easier. That basically means I have to deal with endless junk mail just so poor people get something cheaper.

What do you care about poor people getting something cheaper? Don't buy stamps and you won't be funding them.

Will you now rail at the Catholic Church because they give things to the poor but also cause traffic snarls on Sunday morning, thereby making you late to your Libertarian Sunrise Sermons? :lol:

 

[ocean515]

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.

I'm certainly not privy to the thinking that took place at the time, but considering the employment pool that would be contributing to long term obligations would be getting smaller and smaller, a front loaded plan would seem to make sense.

Think Social Security.

It seems reasonable to fund the program while larger numbers of employees were in place, than to wait until the pool is smaller, and and expect taxpayers to foot the difference.

I find the talk about the effort was nothing but an attempt to destroy a union nothing but the talk of the simple minded. That makes no sense.

 

[mak2]

I cant remember the exact number but we send out about 130 Christmas cards. I had to buy I think it was 10 extra stamps becuase I think I boght them in 20s, anyway, I ran accross them recently. I guess I have not used a stamp since Christmas. That is what is wrong with the postal service.

 

[polgara]

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.

Greetings, MoSurveyor. :2wave:

:agree: Very unfair, IMO. Makes me wonder why someone seemed to have a beef against the USPS to single them out like that! :shock:

 

[MoSurveyor]

I'm certainly not privy to the thinking that took place at the time, but considering the employment pool that would be contributing to long term obligations would be getting smaller and smaller, a front loaded plan would seem to make sense.

Think Social Security.

It seems reasonable to fund the program while larger numbers of employees were in place, than to wait until the pool is smaller, and and expect taxpayers to foot the difference.

If it's so reasonable then why isn't any other system in the country doing it or being required to do it? Nobody, public or private, loads up tens of billions of dollars like that.


This has zero to do with taxpayers footing some future bill, as I noted in my last post.

I find the talk about the effort was nothing but an attempt to destroy a union nothing but the talk of the simple minded. That makes no sense.

I have no clue to what you're referring, here. You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They do, every day. I just got some books from Amazon shipped FedEx - except the last leg of the trip from downtown to here, was USPS. :lol:

My next door neighbor works for FedX.

FedX and the USPS work with each other. FedX planes flies the mail around the nation.

 

[ocean515]

If it's so reasonable then why isn't any other system in the country doing it or being required to do it? Nobody, public or private, loads up tens of billions of dollars like that.


This has zero to do with taxpayers footing some future bill, as I noted in my last post.



I have no clue to what you're referring, here. You must have me confused with someone else.

My reference to "union busting" wasn't directed at you, just a general observation.

If the taxpayer has zero to do with this action, as you have suggested, then what was the reason for requiring the Pension Plan to be front loaded?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

If the taxpayer has zero to do with this action, as you have suggested, then what was the reason for requiring the Pension Plan to be front loaded?

I don't get that either. Why pre-pay 75 years of pensions? Is working at the Post Office the equilivant of drinking from the Fountain of Youth? How many actually collect for 75 years?