USPS Plans 27,000 Job Cuts as Plants Shut
By Angela Greiling Keane - Feb 23, 2012 9:37 AM MT
The U.S. Postal Service, which predicts an annual loss of $18.2 billion by 2015, plans to eliminate 4.9 percent of its workforce by closing almost half of its mail-processing facilities to cut costs.
The service plans to shut 223 of its 457 mail-processing plants by February 2013, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said in a telephone interview today. The Postal Service will cut about 27,000 jobs through attrition, he said.
The closings will save the Washington-based service about $2.5 billion a year, Donahoe said. In September, the agency said it was seeking to save $3 billion a year by closing 252 plants and cutting 35,000 jobs.
Shutting mail-processing facilities is part of a plan to consolidate work and slow mail delivery to save money. The service, which is seeking to end Saturday mail delivery, posted a loss of $3.3 billion for the quarter ended Dec. 31.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/u-s-postal-service-to-cut-4-9-of-jobs-by-closing-almost-half-of-plants.html
earthside
(6,960 posts)We cannot or will not run an efficient, comprehensive postal service in the United States any longer.
And the biggest naysayers are the Repuglicans -- even though the establishment of the Postal Service is in the Constitution.
Instead of getting smaller, the Post Office should be allowed to expand its services, as proposed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.
I take this development, along with the fact that the U.S. cannot even deliver a person to the space station these days, as evidence of decline brought about mostly by Repuglican obstinacy.
tabatha
(18,795 posts)The Post Office was doing extremely well, until legislation was passed that they had to put away money for pensions for people who have not even been hired yet. I will look for the article.
EDIT:
It was only a few years ago that the USPS was considered not only stable, but thriving. The biggest volume in pieces of mail handled by the Postal Service in its 236-year history was in 2006. The second and third busiest years were in 2005 and 2007, respectively. But it was two events: one crafted during the Bush years and another supervised by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, that would cripple this once great institution.
Perhaps it was its booming history that first drew Congress' attention to the Postal Service in 2006 when it passed the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act (PAEA), which mandated that the Postal Service would have to fully fund retiree health benefits for future retirees. That's right. Congress was demanding universal health care coverage.
But it even went beyond that. Congress was mandating coverage for future human beings.
"It's almost hard to comprehend what they're talking about, but basically they said that the Postal Service would have to fully fund future retirees' health benefits for the next 75 years and they would have to do it within a ten-year window," says Chuck Zlatkin, political director of the New York Metro Area Postal Union.
http://www.truth-out.org/last-union/1315492298
Damned Issa again. The sooner he gets out of politics, the better for the country.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)retire w/ billions? - all those excess retirement funds will go where?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Why do I get a feeling the money is in some gov't account which is being robbed to pay government expenses?
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)former9thward
(31,684 posts)The bill was introduced and co-sponsored by two Democrats, Henry Waxman and Danny Davis acting on behalf of the postal union. Waxman and Davis are two of the most progressive reps there. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and the House on a voice vote with no one being recorded against it. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6407
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)a) in 2005-6, the GOP held the majority in both the House and the Senate, and any postal reform legislation including the onerous prefunding requirement would have passed anyway
b) the original GOP-written House bill for H.R. 6407 (and its antecedents) specifically would have busted the postal unions right away back in 2006. Waxman and Davis used their roles as co-sponsors of the final legislation to at least eliminate that union-busting language. They weren't able to do more than that, and have attempted since 2006 (unsuccessfully) to get rid of H.R. 6407's prefunding requirement. The GOP have held all the cards on this one issue from the very beginning.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)1) No Democrat voted against it. None.
2) You are saying if the GOP controls Congress then Democrats should just vote for anything proposed because they can't stop it.
3) The GOP did not have 60 votes in the Senate so a filibuster could have stopped it there.
4) Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Executive from 2009-2011. They could have repealed it.
5) "The passage of the postal reform act was intended by Congress to preserve and protect the Postal Service for the American people, he said in testimony on behalf of the union." -- comments by the Legislative Director of the Postal Union in 2008 defending the Act. http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2008/webart-0840-paea_testimony-080508.htm
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6407
Dec 8, 2006: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representatives position was not kept.
.....................................
"You are saying if the GOP controls Congress then Democrats should just vote for anything proposed because they can't stop it."
It would be kind of strange for Democrats who lobbied -- and succeeded -- to have the union-busting language removed from the original legislation to then vote 'no' on the revised bill, wouldn't it?
.............................
"Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Executive from 2009-2011. They could have repealed it."
They did try to repeal it, but couldn't because of GOP leadership and Tea Party Republicans (you did research all this before you posted, right?:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4959610&mesg_id=4960877
H.R. 22 (actually introduced by Republican John McHugh and Democrat Danny Davis) was passed by the House in 2009 over objections by the Tea Party-like Republicans, but has been blocked in the Senate by the GOP ever since through threat of filibuster (along with over 300 other bills).
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) just a few months ago introduced even stronger legislation designed to allow USPS to use tap its overpayments. No way is it going to get anywhere in the new Tea Party-controlled House.
Last year, Harry Reid tried to get something going in the Senate to limit the amount of money USPS would be required to prefund each year. The GOP killed it.
................................................
"The passage of the postal reform act was intended by Congress to preserve and protect the Postal Service for the American people, he said in testimony on behalf of the union." -- comments by the Legislative Director of the Postal Union in 2008 defending the Act
The APWU legislative director was a member of Congress, and was speaking on behalf of Congress in defense of the bill? Who knew?
In any case, you (once again -- gee, what a surprise!) conveniently left out this portion of his testimony:
Whether the act will have its intended effect remains in doubt."
So he wasn't even "defending" the bill, after all, was he? His appearance before the Postal Reform Committee was to send a warning to those who were seeking to dismantle and privatize the USPS not to misuse the provisions of the new law.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)In the age of the internet it just doesn't work. Don't you wish for the good old days?
A voice vote requires unanimous consent. If someone wants their votes to be recorded a recorded vote must be taken. If someone wanted to oppose this bill they could have asked for a recorded vote. No one did. In the Senate it was a unanimous vote. Try your BS with someone who doesn't know the rules.
Here is what the Postal Union said right after the bill was passed:
Financial Relief
There is some good news with significant financial impact on the USPS: The new law releases from an escrow account billions of dollars that the USPS has saved by ending overpayments to the Civil Service Retirement System; and it returns to the Treasury responsibility for paying about $27 billion in military service-related retirement benefits for postal workers. (No other federal agency has been required to pay these costs.)
The USPS was saddled with these financial burdens by provisions contained in the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-18). The provisions were supposed to be temporary, but the Bush administration insisted they remain in force to make the federal budget deficit appear smaller. Ultimately, the White House relented on its demand.
Notice not a single word of criticism of pre-funding pensions.
http://www.apwu.org/dept/legis/legmagart010107-reform.htm
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)The existence of the Internet is apparently your vehicle for attempting to confuse people (is it your paycheck, as well?):
"A voice vote requires unanimous consent. If someone wants their votes to be recorded a recorded vote must be taken. If someone wanted to oppose this bill they could have asked for a recorded vote. No one did. In the Senate it was a unanimous vote. Try your BS with someone who doesn't know the rules."
So because a voice vote was held, that means no Democrats voted against it, as you claimed earlier?
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/95-563.pdf
Whenever Representatives vote on the floor, there first is a voice vote, in which the Members in favor of the bill, amendment, or motion vote Aye in unison, followed by those voting No. Before the Speaker (or the chair of the Committee of the Whole) announces the result, any Representative can demand a division vote, in which the Members in favor stand up to be counted, again followed by those opposed. But before the result of either a voice vote or a division vote is announced, a Member may try to require another vote in which everyones position is recorded publicly.
Nothing there about a voice vote meaning "nobody voted against it", "everybody voted in favor of it", nor that declining to request a recorded vote means a completely uniform voice vote.
"Here is what the Postal Union said right after the bill was passed..."
It's been noted for some time that the various postal unions failed to see the danger of the pre-funding requirement back in 2006. Not like their opposition to it would have prevented it from being rammed through the Republican Congress, anyway. They've been lobbying to have it revoked ever since: http://my.firedoglake.com/mmonk/2011/08/19/the-pre-funding-mandate-bringing-down-the-american-postal-workers-union/
former9thward
(31,684 posts)to whitewash anything anyone with a D behind their name does no matter how harmful.
To my knowledge no Democrat in either the House or Senate voted against the bill. If you know of one tell who that person(s) are. As I posted before, and you confirmed, anyone can ask for votes to be recorded. If anyone thought this bill was bad they should have asked for a recorded vote.
To say the bill was "rammed" through is a lie. The bill had been floating around in one form or another for 3 or 4 years before it was finally voted on. There were hearings where the Postal Union testified about their concerns -- as was noted in the link I provided.
They may now have gotten cold feet about the bill but it is BS to say there was some big conspiracy to end the post office when progressive Democrats sponsored the bill and the postal union supported it. Maybe someone who was competent should have read the bill before voting on it and alerted people to the dangers before a vote instead of waiting years later. No one, including the union, said one word. Not a word.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)I'm aware that corporate Democrats like Tom Carper and Max Baucus have fought against efforts to eliminate the pre-funding requirement.
They may now have gotten cold feet about the bill but it is BS to say there was some big conspiracy to end the post office when progressive Democrats sponsored the bill and the postal union supported it. Maybe someone who was competent should have read the bill before voting on it and alerted people to the dangers before a vote instead of waiting years later.
Please show us how Waxman and Davis were the ones responsible for including the pre-funding requirement into the House legislative draft. You won't be able to because the pre-funding requirement was included after Susan Collins (R-Maine) added it to one of the Senate versions of the bill, which then got shuttled back to the House. As was already explained to you, the House Democrats bargained to remove the union-busting and privatization provisions from the House legislation. That's why they voted for the bill as it was hammered out.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)that dismantling the "public" sector might be an indicator of transition to a completely corporate world that utilizes a techno-fascism style to facilitate and stabilize its dominance.
It is hard to imagine that the breakdown of various factors in ordinary life are not factored in by the money and power-controlling players in the game.
Social engineering and people-as-profit -- life as nothing more than profit, etc. -- seems to proliferate as the tenets of neo-liberalism unfold and take hold as an emerging paradigm.
I don't suggest that this is a factual future we face since many factors are involved in the equation. One of the most crucial factors is how we, individually and collectively, interact with, and support this manipulated trend.
NICO9000
(970 posts)That seems to be the only work they can do that doesn't piss everyone else off. These people are just evil, pure and simple.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)eating the seed corn for some phony retirement funding mandate.
Sorting and Distribution center are increasingly becoming better automated with sorting machines becoming smaller and smaller. The USPS quite simply has too many facilities. The only reason thtat these centers are open is because of political pressure from local politicians who want their mail to go out with their zipcode stamp.
byronius
(7,362 posts)The USPS is mandated by the Constitution, and serves the American people well. Are you not aware that it is a highly profitable enterprise, and truly important to the rural areas they intend to close? Your statement is absolute balderdash.
Why would you cheer on the vultures who intend ultimately to charge us ten dollars to send a letter by privatizing the USPS? Why would you support that?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)passed a law requiring that the USPS have funds onhand to pay for future employees retirements. FUTURE employees. Thay may succeed in killing the USPS byt forcing it to close distribution and sorting centers to save money, which makes delivery slower. Slower delivery loses customers.
They closed a sorting center in Cville, so now all our mail has to go to Richmond and back. The truck doesnt arrive to give our mailman his load to deliver until 10am or later now, instead of 8am. He is frequently still delivering after 6pm.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)former9thward
(31,684 posts)The bill was sponsored and introduced by Henry Waxman and Danny Davis. It was a bill the postal union wanted until they realized the financial implications years later.
DUIC
(167 posts)Bulk mail is a highly profitable enterprise, First class mail is not.
Irrespective of the relative profit margin of bulk mail, the USPS is burdened by excess capacity.
Your straw man argument is poppycock. Who stated that I want the privatization of the USPS....which..BTW...with the exception of meddling government oversight....it is.
So, before you go around making bold statements that someone is misinformed, make sure the person you are stating that to is not more informed than you.
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)The USPS problems stem from that requirement that they prefund retirement benefits, something no other entity is required to do. If they weren't required to do that, they would show a profit.
To suggest that it's their fault and that they're run into the ground by the gubmint is just fucking stupid.
DUIC
(167 posts)as is excess sorting and distribution capacity.
The two are mutually exclusive. They need to change the funding requirement and deal with excess capacity.
These are two problems.
Again, with the straw man. I never stated that it was run into the ground.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,070 posts)... project much?
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)As others have pointed out, it's mandated by the Constitution.
Should the military also be profitable? Maybe we should force Congress and the White House to earn their keep and return a profit to the Treasury.
DUIC
(167 posts)Why can't they be profitable?
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,070 posts)... in the constitution. There belief being that free exchange of ideas and information will create a more informed populace. As of the postal reorganization of the late 60's, the USPS is mandated to BREAK EVEN over four or five year accounting periods. There, now you actually got some bona fide information from someone that KNOWS.
Former USPS employee.
DUIC
(167 posts)The USPS can shutter under-utilized facilities.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)Keep in mind your definition of "under-utilized" may differ from others'. Perhaps you have a car and can easily drive an extra 10 miles to the nearest PO when your local branch closes? My guess is your local branch wasn't placed on the "under-utilized" list and, therefore, everyone else should be able to make do with what they have just like you (supposedly) do.
If the post office is over-burdened with anything, it's political cronyism and top-heavy deadwood "management." A good pruning of both would return the USPS to profitable status in no time.
Fortran
(83 posts)I don't have any dog in this fight but I sure do have a lot of experience with slugs in the USPS workforce who just slide by and don't even give 20% for their wages. Sometimes it looks like affirmative action for assholes.
DUIC
(167 posts)The closures are predominately sorting and distribution centers . In some cases, these are are local branches. In many cases, these are huge facilities with large scale sorting machines that are predominately visited by USPS trucks and not postal customers.
Why would we keep a 500,00 square foot sorting and distribution center to service a few customers in the front office?
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)or does it play a useful role beyond monetary gain?
The USPS is a vital part of our nation's infrastructure. Not only does having a healthy postal system ensure that we can move important documents and goods from sea to sea in a timely manner, it also keeps people employed, serving as a useful way to inject money into many struggling communities. The USPS helps small businesses stay competitive, not just in the U.S. market, but globally, as well.
They can be profitable, but the idea that they must be profitable is as absurd as demanding that the military or Congress or any other part of government be profitable.
DUIC
(167 posts)That means closing underutilzed sorting and distribution centers.
The US military no longer maintains a large cavalry. Should they?
Demanding that the USPS maintain facilities that they no longer need is as absurd as demanding that the military or Congress or any other part of government be profitable.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)I think the USPS should be retooled, but modern technology does what it always does.
Angleae
(4,468 posts)It grants congress the power to establish post offices but has never mandated that they actually do so.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)i used to work on the end of a bindery line that mailed stuff out. i have a pretty good idea what is wrong with the postal service. your statements are way far off the mark.
DUIC
(167 posts)What is wrong with the postal service. I will tell you what is wrong with the postal service
1. Excess capacity
2. Declining First Class mail
3. Funding requirements for retirement benefits.
Now...what can you add to this list or state that I am way off the mark on?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)not private postal carriers!
DUIC
(167 posts)See my post. Nothing I said was untrue or inaccurate.
IamK
(956 posts)and email....
byronius
(7,362 posts)Can't believe they're getting away with this.
Without the pre-funding requirement, the last three postage hikes would have been unnecessary.
Ben Franklin, come forth and haunt the conscience of these hyenas.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)This had to be done to appease UPS FED-EX and HDL
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Fortran
(83 posts)hmm
IamK
(956 posts)Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)OverDone
(138 posts)..
bayareaboy
(793 posts)Trying to figure out how having 27,000 more folks out looking for work solves anything.
I really hate when that happens.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)That's the second reason for the law requiring 75 yrs of benefits paid up in 10 yrs. The first being to break the PO and their union.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)can we just admit the post office is a dinosaur in need of extinction or at least evolution?
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)That institution loses far more money than the Post Office does.
And have you seen the operating budget for the White House lately? I mean, holy fuck, are they are losing tons of money!!11!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Way too big and wasteful... much like the USPS.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)carry and receive your own letters and small packages from all around the country.
Happy driving and walking.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The world is rapidly changing and the USPS has to evolve like all other businesses to keep up.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)I had not realized they had resumed.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)What's with all of the willful ignorance around here lately?
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)The point was that they were still losing money after they stopped contributing to the pension. Technology has severely impacted them.
Great Caesars Ghost
(532 posts)there shall only be one post office?
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Post offices, plural.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Great Caesars Ghost
(532 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)I hope many postal workers choose to retire and the number of laid off younger people is diminished because of it.
WCIL
(343 posts)which also happened to be her 45th birthday. She is the primary breadwinner for her family. The post office will have to find her another job within 50 miles, but there will be no open facilities within 50 miles. If you look at a map of Illinois, Quincy and Springfield stations are slated to close, and it is my understanding that Bloomington's is already closed. Quincy's mail will travel to Columbia, MO. A letter mailed in town would be delivered in town the next day. Now it will take probably 4. It is possible she could transfer to Columbia, but that puts someone there in line for layoff.
She is very concerned about the fact that her family could lose their insurance, and she also is fearful of who will raid the pension she is still 20 years away from being able to draw.