Can I file a compaint against the USPS with the BBB?

[bicker]

It is time to privatize the postal delivery service.

What makes anyone think that any company would care to compete against USPS. Where's the profit motive? Residential delivery is subsidized, not only by federal funding but also by profits on profitable services -- services for which the USPS has competition already, in the form of UPS and FedEx. I think it is a pretty big leap to assume that any company would care to get into the residential delivery business.

This reminds me of the situation regarding broadband service in northern New England (ME, VT, NH), Hawaii, and in numerous other rural areas (including portions of Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin). In those areas, people had this idea that companies should be falling over themselves to build fiber-optic networks, and offer every home in the state high-quality broadband service for a very affordable price. Instead, one of the nation's largest broadband service providers has abandoned the northern New England states, and is doing its best to detach itself from the rest of those rural areas. Why? Because the business environment is such that there is no profit to be made, long-term.

No profit; no incentive to offer service.

And residential mail delivery is the same. The costs to provide such service are exceedingly high (and since it is so heavily dependent on human resources, who are afforded ever-increasingly expensive health care [increasingly expensive to the employer, even though the employees are paying a greater share], those costs are getting higher, relatively quickly, and will continue to do so, unless/until our nation significantly reduces the standard of living for practically everyone). And new regulation is a constant threat, threatening to squash any chance of finding a path towards sufficient profitability long-term.

If we don't keep residential mail delivery a public priority, with the government standing behind it guaranteeing the integrity of the the continuation of the service, then there is a real danger that some parts of the country could end up having no one willing to offer them service anymore. You'll have ever-increasingly less reliable companies taking over operations in these areas. We could see some areas go to three days per week delivery (and maybe we should, I don't know). We could see some areas go (back) to post office pick-up service only.

Going back to the broadband service example, there is a big fight going on now to get the American people, though their government, to start treating broadband service like regular telephone service is treated now -- kind of like how residential mail delivery is treated now -- as a national priority, thereby underwritten by the national government, with the provision of said service subsidized, if necessary, to ensure universal access. Are people seriously suggesting taking residential mail delivery out from under that protective umbrella?

 

[LadyZolt]

No profit; no incentive to offer service.

....

If we don't keep residential mail delivery a public priority, with the government standing behind it guaranteeing the integrity of the the continuation of the service, then there is a real danger that some parts of the country could end up having no one willing to offer them service anymore.

You make some good points here and I don't know that privatization is the answer, or if it's the answer for some areas of the nation and not for others. I do know that the current post office is going bankrupt and it has many internal problems, and some could argue that the problems come as a result of being government-run because it makes it hard to fire employees. I would not be complaining about the post office if it was providing the level of service that it used to provide, and the level of customer service that it used to provide. The post office is going to lose some $7 billion (yes, that's billion with a "b" -- your tax dollars at waste) this fiscal year. If you've read this thread, you've seen a lot of people posting their own stories, and you also see that people are utilizing other delivery services instead of the post office, eve if it costs more, in order to avoid what they perceive is incompetence or outright theft. If the post office re-gained a reputation for being reliable and efficient, people would start using it more and it wouldn't be in such bad financial shape.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

 

[The Mystery Machine]

You make some good points here and I don't know that privatization is the answer, or if it's the answer for some areas of the nation and not for others. I do know that the current post office is going bankrupt and it has many internal problems, and some could argue that the problems come as a result of being government-run because it makes it hard to fire employees. I would not be complaining about the post office if it was providing the level of service that it used to provide, and the level of customer service that it used to provide. The post office is going to lose some $7 billion (yes, that's billion with a "b" -- your tax dollars at waste) this fiscal year. If you've read this thread, you've seen a lot of people posting their own stories, and you also see that people are utilizing other delivery services instead of the post office, eve if it costs more, in order to avoid what they perceive is incompetence or outright theft. If the post office re-gained a reputation for being reliable and efficient, people would start using it more and it wouldn't be in such bad financial shape.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

I doubt it. I have had bad service with UPS and FedEx.

You are not going to have a perfect postal system, ever.

If they are losing that much money per yr then they need to raise their prices to cover the cost of being in the red. However, everyone screams FOUL and wants affordable postal services at their disposal.

It is a no win situation at the moment. I do agree that changes are necessary. It will come with sacrifice from the consumer.

 

[tonilea]

I worked for the USPS as a rural carrier for a while - one of the hardest jobs I have ever had! I worked with a great bunch of people - with one exception. It seemed he wasn't delivering all the mail or doing all his route on a daily basis. =( Made everyone look bad.

For the most part, I suspect most thefts happen at the large processing centers, not your average post office worker or carrier, though I am sure that happens too. A previous poster was right about the burden of proof and difficulty terminating employees. For our area, the post office is a high paying job with only a high school education required.

 

[kaytieeldr]

The post office should ensure that their staffing on their busiest time of the year (after Thanksgiving until Christmas) meets the demand, and they consistently don't.

Do you have inside knowledge of the post office's scheduling? Because to the best of mine - and yes, I do know postal employees - they DON'T allow anyone to take time off during the period stated. In fact, there is available-to-mandatory (depending on position) overtime. Can't do a whole heck of a lot about callouts. You can always discuss staffing with your postmaster or the manager on duty.

Again, it's too bad your husband had to wait more than a few seconds to pick up your package.

 

[kaytieeldr]

The package was not too big for the mailbox. The package required a signature. The form said they tried to deliver it, yet no one was home. That is *not true*. Four adults were home at the time.

Really? Because my "Sorry we missed you" form says nothing about no one being home. Heck, the entire back of the form provides options for redelivery. Yes, we understand you needed this particular package by a specific date so the post office's offer and ability to redeliver wouldn't have helped. On the other hand, this side of the form also has my local PO's phone number - I bet if you'd called them the day you got the notice (the 23rd, right?), they would have redelivered it on the 24th. Voila! No standing in line, no complaints about lack of staffing... by the way, how many clerks does your post office normally have on duty?

 

[kaytieeldr]

and some could argue that the problems come as a result of being government-run because it makes it hard to fire employees

Or it could easily be that being unionized is what makes it hard to fire employees - although I'm not sure why you feel any should be fired.

 

[bicker]

You make some good points here and I don't know that privatization is the answer, or if it's the answer for some areas of the nation and not for others.

That, itself, poses more problems (or more problems of the same ilk), specifically if you allow privatization in the some areas where provision of service is profitable, you place a greater burden of subsidy with regard to provision of service in areas where that is not profitable.

I do know that the current post office is going bankrupt and it has many internal problems, and some could argue that the problems come as a result of being government-run because it makes it hard to fire employees.

I don't want to even think of how vicious things would get if you actually tried to start offering residential postal service without using APWU workers. If competitors would be union shops, then that aspect of USPS operations wouldn't be much different in its competitors.

I would not be complaining about the post office if it was providing the level of service that it used to provide, and the level of customer service that it used to provide.

The cost of residential postal delivery has roughly paralleled the rate of inflation for almost a hundred years. [Source] Given that level of service and level of customer service has declined, in general, over the years, practically across-the-board, for everything from airlines, to grocery stores, to telephone companies, to physicians, to department stores, etc., why would the USPS be any different than the general case?

The post office is going to lose some $7 billion (yes, that's billion with a "b" -- your tax dollars at waste) this fiscal year.

Your sentence implies that $7 billion was wasted. That's a logical fallacy. Money is not "wasted" unless the services that were provided as a result of spending that money was completely unnecessary -- i.e., if residential postal service was unnecessary.

To explain it another way: Circuit City went out of business last year, due to losses numbering in the hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter -- toward the end the chain was a couple of billion dollars in debt. Does that mean that that a couple of billion dollars was "wasted"? No. Much of that money went to buying inventory, paying salaries and benefits, etc.

In either case, while some money was perhaps "wasted", the negative net-revenue number is not, as you said, "at waste". I spent a career as a management consulting, spending 200+ days a year on the road visiting two, three and sometimes four companies per week, and I have never seen a company that didn't have any waste. However, no one has suggest that the USPS has $7 billion of waste. I suspect most of that loss reflects the fact that the price charged was lower than the cost to provide what was provided.

If the post office re-gained a reputation for being reliable and efficient, people would start using it more and it wouldn't be in such bad financial shape.

I doubt that most Americans would be willing to pay what it would take to pay the true costs for a "reliable and efficient" USPS. There is simply way too much entitlement floating around to overcome that societal obstruction. Besides, I think that Americans love to have a whipping boy, and will find one in every quarter.

 

[LindaG4458]

Do you have inside knowledge of the post office's scheduling? Because to the best of mine - and yes, I do know postal employees - they DON'T allow anyone to take time off during the period stated. In fact, there is available-to-mandatory (depending on position) overtime. Can't do a whole heck of a lot about callouts. You can always discuss staffing with your postmaster or the manager on duty.

Again, it's too bad your husband had to wait more than a few seconds to pick up your package.

I was in line at the post office 30 minutes before it opened. There were about a dozen people ahead of me. An employee came out and encouraged us to use the kiosk if we had a debit card because there would only be one clerk at the desk when it finally opened. She explained that there had just been a drop shipment made to the back area and everyone else would be sorting the mail and packages.

 

[Sal]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyZolt
The post office is going to lose some $7 billion (yes, that's billion with a "b" -- your tax dollars at waste) this fiscal year.

I have worked for the USPS for almost 30 years. I know there can be delivery problems, lost or broken items and other problems. I make mistakes.
However, I could tell you many, many stories of how employees have gone way above and beyond the call of duty to serve our customers. (I once helped a customer recover a diamond ring that someone had mailed to her in a regular letter size envelope!) The vast majority are hard working and dedicated to serving their customers.

I am sorry to hear when people have a bad experience. However, I do feel the need to correct Lady Zolt. The USPS is not supported by tax dollars. We run on the revenue we generate through postage sales. This has been the case since 1971.

The USPS needs to find ways to be more efficient and we are indeed in a financial crisis. I would hate to see privatization. I live in a rural area and I am certain no other company is going to drive down miles of gravel roads to deliver a letter for 44 cents.

 

[kaytieeldr]

However, I could tell you many, many stories of how employees have gone way above and beyond the call of duty to serve our customers. (I once helped a customer recover a diamond ring that someone had mailed to her in a regular letter size envelope!)

Thank you for the reminder, Sal! You reminded me of an above-and-beyond experience! One Christmas, I ordered Star Trek checks for my brother as his gift. Even though I provided the printer/shipper with my complete mailing address, the package was sent to
Katie
6 Padelpa*
Slem
where my complete/correct address would be
Kaytie Eldr
16 Philadelphia Road, Unit 6Z*
Salem MA 01970

Yet, still, my carrier - who, along with all the other carriers, sorts his own route - got the package TO me.

*Street information changed for privacy, but ideally the gist - wrong number, very wrong spelling, no unit number...

 

[mjkacmom]

So today is Christmas Eve and yesterday, the post office left me a form to pick up a gift, claiming that they tried to leave it at my house but no one answered the door. First, that's ridiculous -- I was in the kitchen making cookies and had the postal employee merely knocked or rang the bell, we'd have answered it. Four adults were home at the time, so I know NO EFFORT was made to have us come to the door and sign for the package.

So, DH goes to the post office this morning to get the "signature required" (thank God, otherwise, I believe it stood a good chance of becoming 'missing in transit' or something and it is a Christmas present I paid a hundred dollars for) package. Guess how many postal employees were working at 10 a.m. on Christmas Eve when over a dozen people were lined up to get packages?

ONE.

No one can possibly explain the logic of that. One poor postal clerk to hand out all the packages on Christmas Eve. The post office really has no idea how to provide good customer service.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

LOL - OP here, and this is the reason I didn't get my stamps in person. There are 27,000 residents in my town, and there is only ONE person working at a time at our post office (although there are TWO windows - the post office has been there for over 100 years). And we only have 2 mailboxes left in town! I remember being able to walk to a mailbox...

 

[Beezle2]

You make some good points here and I don't know that privatization is the answer, or if it's the answer for some areas of the nation and not for others. I do know that the current post office is going bankrupt and it has many internal problems, and some could argue that the problems come as a result of being government-run because it makes it hard to fire employees. I would not be complaining about the post office if it was providing the level of service that it used to provide, and the level of customer service that it used to provide. The post office is going to lose some $7 billion (yes, that's billion with a "b" -- your tax dollars at waste) this fiscal year. If you've read this thread, you've seen a lot of people posting their own stories, and you also see that people are utilizing other delivery services instead of the post office, eve if it costs more, in order to avoid what they perceive is incompetence or outright theft. If the post office re-gained a reputation for being reliable and efficient, people would start using it more and it wouldn't be in such bad financial shape.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

Just wanted to say in case it hasn't been said already that the Post Office does not spend tax money. We are expected to pay our own way. And if we didn't have to prefund our retirement accounts like no other goverment agency we would be breaking even-ish. Carry on

 

[Beezle2]

I worked for the USPS as a rural carrier for a while - one of the hardest jobs I have ever had! I worked with a great bunch of people - with one exception. It seemed he wasn't delivering all the mail or doing all his route on a daily basis. =( Made everyone look bad.

For the most part, I suspect most thefts happen at the large processing centers, not your average post office worker or carrier, though I am sure that happens too. A previous poster was right about the burden of proof and difficulty terminating employees. For our area, the post office is a high paying job with only a high school education required.

Thank you I have been a Rural sub for 4 years. It is a very hard physical job!

 

[LadyZolt]

On the "your tax dollars" statement -- while it's not outright support by taxpayers, it's not non-existent, either; and this article also states that it's hard for the post office to fire workers (and every place has workers who need to be fired for a variety of reasons from tardiness to theft):

Link to article: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/09/01/the-post-office-is-subsidized-2/

The Post Office IS Subsidized (by John Stossel, Fox Business, September 1, 2009)

The Post Office wasn't happy with my recent post, "Obama's Post Office Mistake." A spokesman sent me a letter claiming that: "The Postal Service is not government subsidized. The last time the Postal Service received taxpayer money for its operation was 1982."

Well, that’s true but mostly not true. Not paying parking tickets and monopoly powers are certainly a form of subsidy. In addition, The Post Office doesn't have to pay state or local taxes, and it gets to borrow billions from the government at reduced rates ($10.2 billion, by the end of this year, according to the GAO.) Last year, the FTC found that the Post Office received implicit subsidies of $34 to $117 million -- and that's not counting the monopoly, its biggest benefit.

When we confronted the Post Office spokesman about that, he admitted that they received those subsidies, but added: "the government gives, but it also takes away. On the negative side, because of the responsibilities given to us by the law, we show a net loss [in terms of subsidies.]"

I don't envy the people who try to manage the Post Office. Venal congressman won't let them close unprofitable offices, and union deals make it nearly impossible to fire workers. The FTC report found that government restrictions cost the Post Office an extra $417 and $986 million per year.

All these government distortions lead to bad service. The Post Office tells me that it scores highly in customer satisfaction and on-time delivery. But the real market test is: where do people put their money? In mail categories where competition is allowed, the US Postal Service has just a 16% market share - behind UPS and FedEX, according to the FTC report linked to above.

The solution: Get rid of all the subsidies and restrictions. It's been done in the UK, Sweden, Germany, and Finland.

A report by European and US researchers, including several members of the US Postal Regulatory Commission, looked at Sweden and concluded that:

The intensely competitive market for bulk mail has forced Posten [the Swedish Government Post Office] to keep its prices low through cost cutting and efficiency measures.

The researchers found that neighboring Norway, which didn't reform its postal system, had prices rise nearly twice as much.

 

[bicker]

and this article also states that it's hard for the post office to fire workers-

You may have missed a few messages earlier making the point that it is hard for any union employers to fire workers.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Of course theft happens within the USPS. My DH is in management at a very large post office. Theft is taken very seriously and the consequence is termination. However, having said that, the standard of proof is high and it is VERY difficult to terminate anyone. My personal opinion is that there must be some way to ensure better accountability of employees. There is an employee who has been fired twice for poor work ethics (not involving theft though), but has appealed and had his job reinstated both times.

There was even some idiot that my DH reprimanded for sleeping on the job (waay longer than his break time or even his lunch time). He filed a grievance on my DH because, as he stated "everyone sleeps during work hours".

Still, it is a hard job and there are many more good, hard-working, honest employees than bad. I have to agree though that they need to change their accountability practices and their termination policies.

I'm sure--but I find it funny that the theft of my items was discounted on the premise that there are many good employees.

I'm sure if my package were simply damaged, I would have at least received an explanation.

I don't doubt the job isn't anything but hard working and stressful--but I still mourn the loss of my package b/c it got in the hands of an employee who was less than honest.

(though i'm over it--but it is still a bummer, that's all I'm saying.)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

On a budgetary note--I thought part of the financial difficulties of the post office were the creation of things like billpay, e-mail, e-cards--etc where more and more people are doing things electronically that they used to use the post office for.

Doesn't that cut into revenues and contribute to their losses?

So if they have to operate on less, but don't cut enough to meet those losses, we would by default experience a decline in service. They're still offering the service, but perhaps with less staff to accomodate the loss in revenue.

 

[bicker]

The problem is that the postal service's expenses tend to run almost completely proportional to how many days per week they deliver mail, so that the only way to cut costs is to stop Saturday delivery (for example). Alternatively, they could make some minor cost reductions by making substantial service quality reductions, such as by reducing the number and frequency of long-range transfers. So letters from Boston to Miami would take an extra day, going forward. Suddenly, you need to start sending in your mortgage payments a day earlier, to have the same level of assurance it will arrive on time.

However, we're just trading one type of service downgrade for another. There is no free lunch -- no way to gain cost reductions without sacrificing something for it.

 

[Beezle2]

On a budgetary note--I thought part of the financial difficulties of the post office were the creation of things like billpay, e-mail, e-cards--etc where more and more people are doing things electronically that they used to use the post office for.

Doesn't that cut into revenues and contribute to their losses?

So if they have to operate on less, but don't cut enough to meet those losses, we would by default experience a decline in service. They're still offering the service, but perhaps with less staff to accomodate the loss in revenue.

>>>

The Post Office could do so much more cost cutting in a way that wouldn't cut into service for our customers but they are a huge monolith of a beast that has 1000 heads. It's really amazing to see how it is run from the inside. Take Jack Potter the Post Master General. Does anyone in the media ever talk about the fact that 2 years ago just before all the talk of money woes for the Post Office the man was given a 30% raise. This was the same year the PO decimated the Rural carrier salaries with a rigged count that lost money for a very large percentage of carriers. They also appointed 3 or 5 new VP's of this and thats at very large salaries. Just like other big companies the top people take care of themselves very well. There is so much abuse and fraud it is sickening to see. I think most people would be just amazed at how it all works and I could go on for quite awhile but I'll spare you all, lol