US Mail Delivery Cutbacks?
The Washington Post reports, "In testimony before a Senate subcommittee ... , Postmaster General John 'Jack' Potter said the post office may be forced to cut back to five-day delivery for the first time in the agency's history, citing rising costs and an ongoing decline in mail made worse by the global recession. The potential move, which would have to be approved by Congress and postal officials, could mean the elimination of mail on either Saturdays or Tuesdays, the system's slowest days, postal officials said."
Washington Post reporter Dan Eggen writes, "For much of its early history, the post office delivered mail seven days a week, including twice-a-day stops in some cities. The switch to six-day service came in 1912, when the agency eliminated Sunday delivery due to objections from Christian groups."
We think that the USPS would do better by cutting their expenses rather than cutting their services. Have you ever thought about how much money the USPS spends every day by giving out free priority mail and express mail envelopes, boxes, tape and labels? Or by giving out the elaborate packages that they provide for use when a person moves to a different address? There are other examples of what we would call "inefficiencies" or even "waste" at post offices.
Maybe the USPS should cut back on those rather than reducing its services.
3 comments:
I might be mistaken, but I believe in my city's post office, the boxes etc. are for sale and not given away.
Fuel, salaries and building maintenance (heat/air conditioning etc.) are a much, much greater expense than any postal supplies.
I'm sure merely reducing staffing in the name of efficiency will be counter-productive also because it will just encourage more frequent use of alternative channels once frustration at longer lines in the post office or extended delays on delivery become apparent.
- Bill
Indiana Bill:
Thanks for your comment. The priority mail boxes and other supplies I referred to in yesterday's post ARE given away for free, at all post offices throughout the US. You can even go online at www.usps.com and order free supplies to be shipped to you. They have DOZENS of different FREE items to choose from (boxes, envelopes, mailers, labels, etc.), you can choose as many as you like, and they will also SHIP them to you for free. Total cost to you is O. Check it out.
I'm not suggesting that the post offices are overstaffed or that people should be laid off. I'm suggesting that there are inefficiencies within the postal system that could easily be eliminated to reduce expenses. My free shipping supply example was simply that: a true-life example of how the USPS could save some money. If they didn't give away free shipping supplies would they save enough money to stop their losses? No. But it will help - any little bit of saving will help. And there are many more ways the USPS could cut back that don't entail people losing jobs.
Here's another example: how about the USPS embarking on an "austerity program" regarding the printing of new stamps? What I mean is, we don't really need 120 or 130 different stamps (different designs) each and every year. We only need a few to meet each of the different rates that are in effect. Although it's nice for people to have 75 or 80 different 42 cent commemorative stamps to choose from, they all pay the 42 cent rate, and it's not necessary to have that kind of choice in order for the mail to be carried. Each new, different stamp the USPS puts out represents a large investment of money. The entire process, from selecting the new stamp's subject, to its design, printing, finishing, packaging, distribution to post offices etc. is expensive. And our postal system does this, year in and year out, for well over 100 different stamps each year! Why not just come up with a few stamps to serve the purpose during these hard economic times. They did that during the Great Depression and World War 2 - only a very limited number of stamps were issued during those years. If the USPS did that, they'd save millions and millions of dollars. And, they wouldn't have to destroy millions (if not billions) of perfectly good, usable stamps (as the USPS does now) when those stamps become obsolete because of a rate increase!
That's just one more example of USPS inefficiency - I could easily come up with several more.
Thanks for giving more details of what you meant.
-- Bill
Post a Comment