Friday, June 25, 2010

Should we be self sustaining?

A letter writer to a Florida newspaper suggest that instead of the Postal Service jostling and scrapping to keep service up in the midst of declining revenues, that we should simply be government funded.

"The Postal Service is the only agency required by the feds to be self-sustaining. Sounds great, but it is also bound by a board of governors through which all rate hikes and restructuring have to go before any action can be taken.


At one time, the Postal Service asked to set up postal stores not unlike the UPS stores. But they were voted down because there were complaints of unfair advantages.

Given the fact that no tax dollars are being used and that it is regulated to death, it seems the only business at a disadvantage is the Postal Service....Thinking in terms of making a profit when all you have to sell is service, why would you continue to make cuts in service?

"The Postal Service has its hands tied behind its back when it comes to being able to compete on a level playing field with other companies. If we want a great service at a bargain price, then we as taxpayers should start paying for it with our taxes and not tie its hands any longer.

"What type of service do you think we would get if the police and fire departments only handled calls that were profitable? Or how about all roads having toll booths in order to make the Department of Transportation profitable. The list is endless when you start looking at services that we enjoy and expect every day, which are paid by taxes, so why not the Postal Service again?"

What do you think about this? Should the Postal Service once again become government funded? Good idea? Bad idea? Comment here.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree, we should be taxpapyer supported. Most customers think we are anyway and Congress regulates us as if we are. It may be the only way we can continue to provide universal service.

Megan said...

I'd have to agree that this is a good idea, and makes more sense to be funded by government since we are considered a government facility by most if not all of the nation.

Anonymous said...

I am a retired PM. To cure PO just charge the addresses of all rural customers $5.00 per year per address for delivery. PO is now solvant. Only problem is congress must change the laws and they are afraid to. I did my own servey before retiring from a level 18 office and 99% of the rural customers I asked about this had no problem. This included city deliverys also. Upper management must get some balls or the PO will close. Upper management needs to listen to some of the workers and lower PM's, but most of upper management thinks they know better. I retired early due to getting tired of working for dumb bosses. I always belive you need to work though your employees to be a good boss. My bosses didn't like this.

Anonymous said...

I am a postal employee, and I heartily agree with this!!
Where I work all we want to do is take care of our customers and get the job done!
We take pride in our endeavors and take care of business!
If all of us took this approach we would be successful!

Anonymous said...

I don't believe we need to be tax payer funded. Upper management is still wasting a great deal of money be keeping too many management level employees. We have two and three MDOs, when we only need one. The real estate deals are horrible, better management will equal profitability. There is no communication between the employees who perform the work and decision making management.

Anonymous said...

I think we need to treat the USPS as a business where you need to study and receive a degree before you jump in head first. We do not need to be tax payer funded. We need to handle the USPS like a private business and start firing non complying employees. Get rid of the unions and lawsuits and grievances.

Anonymous said...

I think we should be under government control this way we could keep saturday deliveries do away with part-time workers and the postmaster general could quit wasting thousands perhaps millions of dollars hiring outside company's to find ways to save time and money and do his job himself.

grannybunny said...

I do not believe we should go back to being tax-funded, even though we provide a public service. Our current economic woes are largely the fault of Congress in the 2006 law. Every time we have to request anything from Congress, they see us as a cash cow and manipulate the situation so that they -- not USPS -- benefit, by having us pay large amounts of money into funds that they can use to make "revenue-neutral" some of their overspending. The more independence from Congress, the better, which is the direction chosen in our present proposals.

Anonymous said...

If congress wants to be in control of the USPS, they should have to fund our operations. If they want us to be self-sustaining, they need to give us the freedom to operate like a business. They want it both ways, and look where it's gotten us!

Anonymous said...

The government can't have everything. They need to let us operate as a business and not regulate how we do that or they need to completely take over and give us the $$$$ to operate. In either case, we need to reduce the number of managers and get rid of the dead heads and untions. We are in the business of customer service and that's where we need to focus attention. There is way too much paperwork and too many reports that take alot of time but don't really serve a valuable purpose. We have to figure out how to get the data without having postmasters/managers spending hours at a computer.

Anonymous said...

The USPS is and should continue to show the nation how a successful operation can be of great service without using tax dollars. We don't want to use tax dollars and open the way for greater inefficiency and having those who don't use the service have to pay. Using tax dollars just increases the costs of the USPS - handling tax revenues takes more people without improving service. I agree that a minimal charge for carrier/rural delivery would be a wonderful revenue source...letting the people who use the service pay for the service.

Anonymous said...

If they start with the Postmaster General and then go down the line and do away with their BONUSES and make them take a pay cut then we will save money and the Postal Service. The 2006 law gave the Potter a 39% raise and those below him at least a 15% raise plus their bonuses. Then Potter added all those SVP's. Sepecial Vice President's of this or that. So instead of anymore cutting from the bottom start looking at the top for the waste. That is all this LLS- Lean Six Signa is doing. They keep paying all these people to find out where to cut jobs. Cut their jobs and we should be half way there.

Anonymous said...

We banter this idea back and forth about being under the federal governemnt. Ladies and gentlemen, we all ready are! When we make our daily deposits, where do you think they go? Look at your paychecks...were does the money come from? To answer both questions...the US Treasury. I would whether see us as federal employees...with wage grades instead of PFP. Having worked for the federal government before, going to wage grades would cause huge cuts in salaries...because federal employees who supervise 2-3 people don't make 60,000 a year! Once and forall, we either go back under the federal system, or bring out all of the other programs and make them be selfsustainging too!!

Anonymous said...

No, we should not become 100% government funded. We waste enough money as it is. I join others who suggest getting rid of upper management before the "worker bees" who actually make the Postal Service function.
Also, less mindless, childish certifying and auditing. We're adults trained to do our jobs and don't need constant scanning, certifying, auditing and supervision, most of which is a colossal waste of time. Leave us alone to take care of our customers and generate revenue.

Anonymous said...

If I'm not mistaken I believe our funds now go into a private bank and our checks are also issued from a private bank and not The Treasury Dept.