Post office to Cut Saturday Mail!

[Pike's Comics]

http://news.yahoo.com/postal-cut-saturday-mail-trim-costs-121737834--finance.html

 

[font:Century Gothic]WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Postal Service will stop delivering mail on Saturdays but continue to deliver packages six days a week under a plan aimed at saving about $2 billion annually, the financially struggling agency says.

In an announcement scheduled for later Wednesday, the service is expected to say the Saturday mail cutback would begin in August.

The move accentuates one of the agency's strong points — package delivery has increased by 14 percent since 2010, officials say, while the delivery of letters and other mail has declined with the increasing use of email and other Internet services.

Under the new plan, mail would be delivered to homes and businesses only from Monday through Friday, but would still be delivered to post office boxes on Saturdays. Post offices now open on Saturdays would remain open on Saturdays.

Over the past several years, the Postal Service has advocated shifting to a five-day delivery schedule for mail and packages — and it repeatedly but unsuccessfully appealed to Congress to approve the move. Though an independent agency, the service gets no tax dollars for its day-to-day operations but is subject to congressional control.

It was not immediately clear how the service could eliminate Saturday mail without congressional approval.

But the agency clearly thinks it has a majority of the American public on its side regarding the change.

Material prepared for the Wednesday press conference by Patrick R. Donahoe, postmaster general and CEO, says Postal Service market research and other research has indicated that nearly 7 in 10 Americans support the switch to five-day delivery as a way for the Postal Service to reduce costs.

"The Postal Service is advancing an important new approach to delivery that reflects the strong growth of our package business and responds to the financial realities resulting from America's changing mailing habits," Donahoe said in a statement prepared for the announcement. "We developed this approach by working with our customers to understand their delivery needs and by identifying creative ways to generate significant cost savings."

The Postal Service is making the announcement Wednesday, more than six months before the switch, to give residential and business customers time to plan and adjust, the statement said.

"The American public understands the financial challenges of the Postal Service and supports these steps as a responsible and reasonable approach to improving our financial situation," Donahoe said. "The Postal Service has a responsibility to take the steps necessary to return to long-term financial stability and ensure the continued affordability of the U.S. Mail."

He said the change would mean a combination of employee reassignment and attrition and is expected to achieve cost savings of approximately $2 billion annually when fully implemented.

The agency in November reported an annual loss of a record $15.9 billion for the last budget year and forecast more red ink in 2013, capping a tumultuous year in which it was forced to default on billions in retiree health benefit prepayments to avert bankruptcy.

The financial losses for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 were more than triple the $5.1 billion loss in the previous year. Having reached its borrowing limit, the mail agency is operating with little cash on hand.

The agency's biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits. Postal authorities wanted Congress to address the issue last year, but lawmakers finished their session without getting it done. So officials are moving ahead to accelerate their own plan for cost-cutting.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a major restructuring throughout its retail, delivery and mail processing operations. Since 2006, it has cut annual costs by about $15 billion, reduced the size of its career workforce by 193,000 or by 28 percent, and has consolidated more than 200 mail processing locations, officials say.

They say that while the change in the delivery schedule announced Wednesday is one of the actions needed to restore the financial health of the service, they still urgently need lawmakers to act. Officials say they continue to press for legislation that will give them greater flexibility to control costs and make new revenues.

[/font]

[mysterio]

About time, but if they still need to bring people in on Saturday how does this really save money?

[Columbia Comics]

About time, but if they still need to bring people in on Saturday how does this really save money?

 

No carriers (except packages) which means less hours = less pay.

 

Doesn't bother me to not get mail on Saturday. In fact, if they cut out all mail on Saturday, I'm fine with that.

 

They should just raise the prices of stamps again while they're at it. My price:

 

[TupennyConan]

Word is that this is expected to butthurt the hobby.

[FlyingDonut]

The agency's biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

 

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

 

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits. Postal authorities wanted Congress to address the issue last year, but lawmakers finished their session without getting it done. So officials are moving ahead to accelerate their own plan for cost-cutting.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a major restructuring throughout its retail, delivery and mail processing operations. Since 2006, it has cut annual costs by about $15 billion, reduced the size of its career workforce by 193,000 or by 28 percent, and has consolidated more than 200 mail processing locations, officials say.

 

Just so people are clear, the reason why the USPS is in trouble is because of the above. I'm sure its just a coincidence that the Congress members who sponsored and pushed this requirement through are all from the Memphis area.

[TupennyConan]

[TupennyConan]

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato

 

Comments:

 

Gonna happen anyway. TupennyConan

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

The agency's biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

 

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

 

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits. Postal authorities wanted Congress to address the issue last year, but lawmakers finished their session without getting it done. So officials are moving ahead to accelerate their own plan for cost-cutting.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a major restructuring throughout its retail, delivery and mail processing operations. Since 2006, it has cut annual costs by about $15 billion, reduced the size of its career workforce by 193,000 or by 28 percent, and has consolidated more than 200 mail processing locations, officials say.

 

Just so people are clear, the reason why the USPS is in trouble is because of the above. I'm sure its just a coincidence that the Congress members who sponsored and pushed this requirement through are all from the Memphis area.

 

So aside from the implied Fedex connection, what's so wrong about making sure a government subsidized agency actually sets money aside for its future obligations? I would imagine I might actually be able to collect Social Security when I retire if that was the case, though its looking very likely I'll never see a penny of what I pay into the system.

[comix4fun]

Word is that this is expected to butthurt the hobby.

 

 

Only if they don't read it closely and see that package delivery (read: comics) will still be 6 days a week.

 

Unless there are boardies that are pen pals in the old school sense and time their snail mail letters to arrive on the weekend I don't think it will be even a blip in the commerce super expressway that is the CGC stream of industry.

[Shaven Kev-migration]

I just get junk mail anyway. 90% of what comes in my mailbox goes directly into the recycling bin.

[Dick Pontoon]

Yeah, the only envelopes I tend to receive on Saturday would be bills, so I really don't care if Saturday service for envelopes is cut. However, I'm always happy to see a nice package in my box, so I'm overjoyed that service will continue.

[Davenport]

The agency in November reported an annual loss of a record $15.9 billion for the last budget year and forecast more red ink in 2013, capping a tumultuous year in which it was forced to default on billions in retiree health benefit prepayments to avert bankruptcy.

 

The agency's biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

 

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

If I'm reading it right, it's saying the USPS has defaulted 2 years on their retiree health benefit fund (5.5B x2 = 11B) plus "an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year"?

 

Ouch. What biz can sustain a repeating 2B annual bleed?

 

 

 

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

The agency's biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

 

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

 

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits. Postal authorities wanted Congress to address the issue last year, but lawmakers finished their session without getting it done. So officials are moving ahead to accelerate their own plan for cost-cutting.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a major restructuring throughout its retail, delivery and mail processing operations. Since 2006, it has cut annual costs by about $15 billion, reduced the size of its career workforce by 193,000 or by 28 percent, and has consolidated more than 200 mail processing locations, officials say.

 

Just so people are clear, the reason why the USPS is in trouble is because of the above. I'm sure its just a coincidence that the Congress members who sponsored and pushed this requirement through are all from the Memphis area.

I concur.

I know USPS tellers the ones that take the comics from the front desk that when you add up all the health benefits and pensions that the average USA Postal worker makes more money than the average Doctors,Lawyers and people with MBAs. The average postal worker is set for life when the retire at 55. That`s why they are going bankrupt.

Not the cost of fuel. Not the cost of man hours, but because of the cost of great benifits that they owe the US Postal Workers. This was a great secret that not too many people knew about. People didn`t realize how good the postal workers have had it over the years benefit wise.

Who would have thunk it was better to become a postman than go to law,business or medical school?

[mysterio]

The agency's biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

 

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

 

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits. Postal authorities wanted Congress to address the issue last year, but lawmakers finished their session without getting it done. So officials are moving ahead to accelerate their own plan for cost-cutting.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a major restructuring throughout its retail, delivery and mail processing operations. Since 2006, it has cut annual costs by about $15 billion, reduced the size of its career workforce by 193,000 or by 28 percent, and has consolidated more than 200 mail processing locations, officials say.

 

Just so people are clear, the reason why the USPS is in trouble is because of the above. I'm sure its just a coincidence that the Congress members who sponsored and pushed this requirement through are all from the Memphis area.

I concur.

I know USPS tellers the ones that take the comics from the front desk that when you add up all the health benefits and pensions that the average USA Postal worker makes more money than Doctors,Lawyers and people with MBAs. The average postal worker is set for life when the retire at 55. That`s why they are going bankrupt.

Not the cost of fuel. Not the cost of man hours, but because of the cost of great benifits that they owe the US Postal Workers.

Who would have thunk it was better to become a postman than go to law,business or medical school?

 

This. I don't have a problem with prepaying benefits at all. If you are obligated to pay them someday then why not have the money onhand? All the state pensions and SS, etc, will be screwed when the bill comes due so it is nice that someone actually has to fund what they promise to pay.

 

The flip side is that they are promising to pay awfully generous benefits. No reason why getting a government job ought to be so lucrative. PO workers aren't fighting fires or getting shot at, I'm sure that OSHA has mandated that they can't lift anything too heavy even. I am all for fair pay for a life's work, but some of these bennies seem a bit out of whack with similar private jobs.

[Conan_Aficionado]

GreeaaaAAATTTTT!!!, I hate getting up in the afternoon on a Saturday to go downstairs to get my mail.

 

And I wouldn't mind paying more for stamps, I do most of my bill payments online and frankly, I don't remember when the last time I used a stamp was.

[Park]

The agency's biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

 

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

 

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits. Postal authorities wanted Congress to address the issue last year, but lawmakers finished their session without getting it done. So officials are moving ahead to accelerate their own plan for cost-cutting.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a major restructuring throughout its retail, delivery and mail processing operations. Since 2006, it has cut annual costs by about $15 billion, reduced the size of its career workforce by 193,000 or by 28 percent, and has consolidated more than 200 mail processing locations, officials say.

 

Just so people are clear, the reason why the USPS is in trouble is because of the above. I'm sure its just a coincidence that the Congress members who sponsored and pushed this requirement through are all from the Memphis area.

 

So aside from the implied Fedex connection, what's so wrong about making sure a government subsidized agency actually sets money aside for its future obligations? I would imagine I might actually be able to collect Social Security when I retire if that was the case, though its looking very likely I'll never see a penny of what I pay into the system.

 

It is incredibly overfunded. They have enough set aside for retirement benefits for people they haven't even hired yet.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

The agency's biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

 

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

 

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits. Postal authorities wanted Congress to address the issue last year, but lawmakers finished their session without getting it done. So officials are moving ahead to accelerate their own plan for cost-cutting.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a major restructuring throughout its retail, delivery and mail processing operations. Since 2006, it has cut annual costs by about $15 billion, reduced the size of its career workforce by 193,000 or by 28 percent, and has consolidated more than 200 mail processing locations, officials say.

 

Just so people are clear, the reason why the USPS is in trouble is because of the above. I'm sure its just a coincidence that the Congress members who sponsored and pushed this requirement through are all from the Memphis area.

 

So aside from the implied Fedex connection, what's so wrong about making sure a government subsidized agency actually sets money aside for its future obligations? I would imagine I might actually be able to collect Social Security when I retire if that was the case, though its looking very likely I'll never see a penny of what I pay into the system.

 

It is incredibly overfunded. They have enough set aside for retirement benefits for people they haven't even hired yet.

 

If that's true, then that's nuts.

[VintageComics]

I've said in the past, you guys have had some incredible services to the point where if you objectively look at it, it was hard to believe.

 

Hand delivered free shipping supplies?

Saturday delivery?

Cheap postage prices than CanadaPost or most couriers?

 

I wish we had half of what you guys did. While it was good for the average consumer I couldn't understand how they could competitively offer all of that stuff and stay profitable.

 

 

[Park]

The agency's biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

 

The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That's $5.5 billion the post office doesn't have.

 

No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits. Postal authorities wanted Congress to address the issue last year, but lawmakers finished their session without getting it done. So officials are moving ahead to accelerate their own plan for cost-cutting.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a major restructuring throughout its retail, delivery and mail processing operations. Since 2006, it has cut annual costs by about $15 billion, reduced the size of its career workforce by 193,000 or by 28 percent, and has consolidated more than 200 mail processing locations, officials say.

 

Just so people are clear, the reason why the USPS is in trouble is because of the above. I'm sure its just a coincidence that the Congress members who sponsored and pushed this requirement through are all from the Memphis area.

 

So aside from the implied Fedex connection, what's so wrong about making sure a government subsidized agency actually sets money aside for its future obligations? I would imagine I might actually be able to collect Social Security when I retire if that was the case, though its looking very likely I'll never see a penny of what I pay into the system.

 

It is incredibly overfunded. They have enough set aside for retirement benefits for people they haven't even hired yet.

 

If that's true, then that's nuts.

 

Even better is that everyone knows it is overfunded but they won't return the money to the Post Office.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/postal-service-federal-pension-contributions-105-percent-overfunded/2012/06/25/gJQAXrva2V_blog.html

 

I think I am treading water here...

[Transplant]

Even better is that everyone knows it is overfunded but they won't return the money to the Post Office.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/postal-service-federal-pension-contributions-105-percent-overfunded/2012/06/25/gJQAXrva2V_blog.html

 

I think I am treading water here...

 

Why not make the USPS do something that FedEx and UPS aren't forced to do? If we get rid of the USPS, private carriers can do the same thing, better, faster and cheaper.