Iowa Legislature 2013 adjournment in sight, leaders say
Suspected abductor of Webster County girls found dead; search on for missing girl
Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Iowa City debates whether police officers belong in schools
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Interactive: Shelter from the storm
How would ending Saturday mail delivery impact you?
Related Stories
The financially struggling U.S. Postal Service said Wednesday it will stop delivering mail on Saturdays but continue to disburse packages six days a week, an apparent end-run around an unaccommodating Congress.
The service expects the Saturday mail cutback to begin the week of Aug. 5 and to save about $2 billion annually, said Postmaster General and CEO Patrick R. Donahoe.
“Our financial condition is urgent,” Donahoe told a press conference.
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.
What do you think of the move? How would ending Saturday mail delivery impact you?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Having no delivery on Saturday will not bother me a bit. I would advocate 3 day per week deliver for residential addresses and 5 day per week delivery for businesses.
I would split residential addresses into 2 groups and deliver to one group on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the other group on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
Also, I would want to make certain that people have the option of picking up their mail at the post office 6 days a week.
Great suggestions Rich. What about just privatizing the whole thing? What ever happened to closing unprofitable post offices?
Is there a private carrier that will deliver a first class piece of mail anywhere in the country for the current cost of first class postage and provide service to every community? The post office provides an important service to remote communities and those who do not have electronic options. It’s role is changing, but it is still an essential service for many people. I don’t see a private carrier doing what the post office does. They may like to “cherry pick” profitable locations, but they don’t want the whole thing.
Constitution of the United States, Article I Section 8, clause 7 “Congress shall have Power . . . . To establish Post Offices and post Roads”
The Post Office is kinda sorta like a constitutional mandate.
If we’re going to privatise constutionally mandated responsibillities of the government, why not just privatise the whole thing? How about we start with the millitary?
Oh wait. We already did that. In Iraq. Hired private companies, like Haliburton, to provide support staff. And how did that work out?
Our military was founded on the 18th century idea of the citizen soldier. It’s in the 2nd Amendment. We don’t do mercenaries. Likewise we don’t leave something as essential to the survival of a civilized society as is communication to the whims of a profit driven private market place
Free Market advocates need to go back a hundred years and review the debates over trusts and trust busting. It’s a good lesson in how well the free market controls monopolies. Fact is it doesn’t
Rich, have you thought about the loss of good paying middle class jobs your suggestions would mean? You ave fallen for the GOP ploy and have accepted that “cutting” is something that needs to bc done to address the Post Office budget shortfall- it is not. Their huge budget shortfall is a problem that Congress created and only Congress can solve. In 2006 lame duck session of congress, while the public wasnt paying attention, the GOP sneeked by a law meant to sabotage the Post Office by requiring the Post Office to fund 75 years worth of pensions in just 10 years. This Congressional mandate on the post office has left it running huge shortfalls in the meantime and needing to cut other places, such as cutting back on services, cutting jobs, and with the eventual goal of the GOP to make the post office look so bad that it would be a prime candidate for privatization. http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/assault-american-unions-extends-p
I’m fully aware of what the GOP did to the post office. Regardless of what they did, efficiency is always desirable. I would be making the same recommendation even if the GOP did not pull their stunt and even if the post office was making huge profits. The role of the post office is changing. It is still needed by many people who live in remote areas and/or do not have electronic communication options. My proposal is an adjustment to the changing role of the post office and it will save money.
Sure your ideas would save money. But my point is, saving money in this caee by cutting services and laying off workers, is not necessary for the Post Office. How far do services get cut? They could cut all services and save even more,… where does it end? The fact of the matter is the Post Office can and should be making those types of strategic business decisions based on use of those services (consumer demand), not making the decisions to do those things based on undue financial burdens placed on the Post Office from Congress.
I don’t think we disagree. I say the Post office should adjust to it’s new role in our society. Ya don’t need a semi when a pickup will do.
The article you linked says that it is for future health benefits paid to retirees not pensions. That said, it does seem like an onerous law that needs a solution. It should be part of the ongoing negiotiations the PO and their unions are having with congress to cut costs. Has a democrat tried to legislate an alternative plan since 2006? If not, it would appear that it’s just another issue the dems want to own for complaint purposes.
Yes, you’re right Sue. It’s 75 years of futire retiree healt benefits, not persons. ..Sorry for the mix up. And you are also right that this onerous 2006 law should be fixed. It should simply be repealed. The law is not something the Unions can negotiate. However if this 2006 lawwas repealed then funding future retiree health benefits would be an item they could negotiate. Dems have not proposed an alternative plan because none is needed- the Post Office can handle its own budget matters without undue demands or interferance/sabotage from Congress. Congress has a terrible tack record of managing finances. Why should they be dictating to the Post Office how to manage theirs?
If the PO wants to be treated like a private entity then they should stop going to congress for $$$$$ everytime they run a shortfall. Dito for Amtrak. Private businesses forecast months and years in advance, with the internet, the PO should have seen this one coming. Most private employers don’t offer company paid prescription coverage when they retire. Medicare D or personal paid coverage is more the norm. Nobody wants benefit cutbacks or lower wages but if they want to be treated more like a private business they need to adjust their business model.
Suggestion, with so many recieving paperless statements, etc. via internet, the post office should consider selling ink through their website. Maybe on an auto delivery system. I read that nearly 75% of Hewlitt Packards business comes from selling ink cartridges.
Or put up apartment style po boxes in neighborhoods to save $$$. Just a thought.
But why do the retired postmasters get more now on retirement than they were earning while working…seems something’s are a little out of order…
Sue, The Post Office is under the Constitutional power of Congress which is why the PO always “whines” to Congress when they need more revenue. The Post Office has to get approval from Congress according the US Constitution to adjust to their business operations such as increasing postage rates, change services, etc, in order to raise revenue. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. Unlike Amtrak, the Post Office is not going to Congress to beg for taxpayer money. The PO did see this coming and has continually asked for Congressional approval to make needed business changes, but Congress refuses to let them make the necessary adjustments to remain solvent. http://investorplace.com/2013/01/price-of-u-s-postal-stamp-to-increase-jan-27/
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/usps-hiking-postage-rates-again-thanks-for-the-help-congress
Sue, what is your argument? The USPS is trying to adjust their business model. Congress isn’t letting them operate how they see fit.
Just a small reduction in recyclables.
?? – - Won’t you just get those “recyclables” another day ?
I’m not likely to be effected by it at all. In fact I like the split schedule listed above.
Yes it will. As a small business we depend on the mail to deliver customers’ payments and to send payments out. Do not tell me to use on-line payments as we have heard too many horror stories about idenity theft and simply do not trust strangers with our private business.
I once owned a small business and I agree that, as a small business, I wanted mail 6 days a week. I don’t want this to get too complicated, but it seems like there could be a way to distinguish business addresses from residential addresses and handle them differently. I assume the real cost savings is in a cutback in rural deliveries. There are not that many businesses in a rural location so perhaps most of the savings could still be realized and still provide businesses with 6 day service.
Would bother me about as much as missing the Monday Pamphlet…err I mean Monday Gazette. We are usually doing something on the weekend or traveling and sometimes don’t check the mail till after Mondays mail comes anyway.
It wouldn’t bother me one iota. In fact, I don’t think the postal service is taking it far enough. If they’re really serious about saving money, I think they should limit delivery to Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, including packages. I would be perfectly happy if they only delivered my mail once a week. It’s mostly junk mail anyway.
So would you be OK if UPS and FedEx only delivered three times a day? It would save money for them right??? There is a reason they deliver 6 days a week, because cuetomers want it. They do it because their competitors do, so they have also have the same 6 day delivery schedule in order to remain competitive in keeping their market share- otherwise if there was no significant reduction in Postal delivery prices (which there wouldn’t be under your scenario) customers would use the carrier that offers more delivery days. If the Post Office did reduce prices to attact customers to account for this then in order to make up the loss in revenue from lower prices they would have to handle more packages ( ie increase marketshare and pull more customers away from it’s competitors). Also, if they need to handling more packages means hiring more workers and putting in place more infrastructure and overhead which is also cost to consider.
Ha ha ha ha. You’re killing me. To try and compare FEDEX and the USPS, is just too funny. The problem with the PO is the union contracts that were negotiated 20 years ago. The pension is large and the healthcare is extravagant. They should scale back offerings and employees. It’s just that simple.
Comparing the post office to private businesses is meaningless. There are no private businesses that will deliver first class mail anywhere in the US for 46 cents or anything close to that.
Why is it wrong to compare their package delivery with that of UPS or FedEx?
Greer,
I think you have the final word on this. There are no private businesses that can replace everything the Post Office does. There just aren’t
I prefer the USPO for paying bills, sending letters, and sending packages. Has to do with cost and security.
No Saturday delivery wouldn’t affect me, nor do I think it would adversely affect businesses. The mail is still in transit. It just shows up on Monday
Closing post offices on Saturday would be a problem because there are certain essential services–like picking up packages and mail that has to be signed for–that may not be easily accessible for a lot of people 9 to 5 MTWTF.
As for adjusting to changing times, the Post Office has already done that. There was a time when the Post Office delivered mail in urban areas twice a day. The telephone made that unnecessary and private messenger services dellivered for those who actually needed more frequent delivery.
There also was a time when rural delivery was near non-existent. People had to travel hours to the nearest post office. Now they don’t
Rich and John, you totally misunderstood my post. (understandable since it was poorly proof-read/worded). If the PO went to 3 day a week package delivery as Jim suggests, and UPS and Fed Ex still remained at 6 day per week delivery, and if the package delivery costs that the PO charges remained the same, wouldn’t you as a customer choose to use the service that offered delivery more days per week? Of course you would. So would most people. This would mean the Post Office would lose parcel post customers, and therefore lose revenue to UPS and FedEx. If the PO went to 3 day per week parcel post delivery services as Jim suggests the PO would need to offer a discount on parcel package delivery prices to entice customers to use their parcel delivery services instead of using the 6 day delivery options that UPS and FedEx offer. If the PO did lower prices to entice customers that would also mean they would need to handle a greater volume of packages to compensate for the lower prices they charge- therefore increasing overhead/labor costs- making it a wash, if not a loss.
Willingly cutting back on services offered to your customers would drive away part of your market share to your competitors and is not a good business decision. (you don’t see UPS or FedEx cutting services, in fact they are expanding them to increase their market share- that was my point)
In the end the underlying problem is the PO needs Congress to get out of its way and stop placing undue burdens on it. Congress needs to let the PO business professionals adjust their business practices on their own to remain competitive in the marketplace. Congress has a tendency to always screw things up!! And that is exactly what they are doing to the Post Office.
I do agree with John that the Postal union is part of the problem. I personally, would be happy with mail 3 times a week (throw most of it unopened in the recycle bin anyway). So does that mean that the postal workers will take a pay cut for working less ? Doubtful ! Seems like whenever a union is involved, whether it be sports or the local factory, the rest of the population ends up paying more to keep the unions happy. I’m thinking the unions hey-day is over.