USPS Plans 27,000 Job Cuts as Plants Shut

[IDemo]

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]

1. Heading into third world status.

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]

2. NO, not at all. This is all manufactured by the Republicans.

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]

6. so that future ONE/last employee gets to

retire w/ billions? - all those excess retirement funds will go where?

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. So all that money the PO has to pay...where is it right now?

Why do I get a feeling the money is in some gov't account which is being robbed to pay government expenses?

[Snake Alchemist]

23. I thought they had fixed that problem by stopping pension contributions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/us/23postal.html

[former9thward]

30. When you find the article you find it was not just Republicans.

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]

48. You conveniently leave out the facts that

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]

65. Let's see what facts you are conveniently leaving out.

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]

66. You were there when the voice vote was held?

"No Democrat voted against it. None."

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 representative’s 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]

67. You are doing your best to confuse people.

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]

68. On the contrary

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 everyone’s 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]

71. Since you brought the insult up you must be getting a paycheck

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]

72. Not quite

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]

73. Some good researching on the thread, thanks.

[Newest Reality]

3. Makes sense, considering

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]

4. And yet, our "great" Congress was naming the remaining ones just a couple weeks ago

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]

5. destroying infrastructure

eating the seed corn for some phony retirement funding mandate.

[DUIC]

7. Makes sense

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]

10. Really, that's just so misinformed.

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. Agree with you 100%, the postal service was doing great btw, until Issa and his cronies

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]

27. Pension contributions have ceased

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/us/23postal.html

[former9thward]

31. See Post #30

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]

15. My Statement is quite well informed

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]

16. But you are misinformed.

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]

18. They were go again with the namecalling. Prefunding retirement benefits is also a problem

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]

37. The poster did not call you any names...

... project much?

[Snake Alchemist]

24. I thought they had fixed that problem by stopping pension contributions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/us/23postal.html

[girl gone mad]

35. Why does the Post Office need to be profitable?

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]

36. Why does the Post Office need to keep running unprofitable operations as a charity

Why can't they be profitable?

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

39. Because the founding fathers mandated universal mail service...

... 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]

40. That does not really answer the question

The USPS can shutter under-utilized facilities.

[Doremus]

42. You're awfully eager to close post office buildings

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]

44. It's also burdened with a lot of snide and arrogant low-level workers. Everyone has run into them.

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]

60. As is the PostMaster General

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]

43. Do you think the military is a charity, too..

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]

61. We do need a healthy postal system

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]

28. If robotic mailmen were to come into existence, what then?

I think the USPS should be retooled, but modern technology does what it always does.

[Angleae]

58. The USPS has *NEVER* been mandated by the constitution.

It grants congress the power to establish post offices but has never mandated that they actually do so.

[madrchsod]

17. where have i heard this before?????

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]

19. Tell me then

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]

22. Nothing a sane congress can't fix! A government run postal service is written into our Constitution,

not private postal carriers!

[DUIC]

33. Where did I ever recommend privatization?

See my post. Nothing I said was untrue or inaccurate.

[IamK]

34. correct... If there is someone to be blamed, it is the person that invented the barcode....

and email....

[byronius]

8. Crime in plain sight.

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]

25. Pension contributions have stopped

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/us/23postal.html

[brentspeak]

53. And have now resumed

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20111115/DEPARTMENTS02/111150304/

[Snake Alchemist]

64. I see that now. Thanks! nt

[Justice wanted]

9. All because the Bush Administration Screw them by having to cover SS for 75 years.

This had to be done to appease UPS FED-EX and HDL

[Dont call me Shirley]

21. And the worst offender, UPS

[Fortran]

45. UPS? The completely unionized package service?

hmm

[IamK]

49. anything Union is in the shitter... sad but true....

[Snake Alchemist]

26. Pension contributions have stopped

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/us/23postal.html

[Doctor_J]

11. Post office today, Public schools soon

[OverDone]

51. Very Possible..

..

[bayareaboy]

12. My head just exploded ...

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]

20. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Dont call me Shirley]

29. Who is in the line up to steal the PO's 75 years of pension benefits?

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]

32. Pension payments have ceased

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/us/23postal.html

[DCBob]

38. and they are still losing tons of money.

can we just admit the post office is a dinosaur in need of extinction or at least evolution?

[Snake Alchemist]

41. Evolution is definitely what is needed. nt

[girl gone mad]

46. After you admit that the military is a dinosaur in need of extinction.

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]

56. Military definitely needs to evolve as well.

Way too big and wasteful... much like the USPS.

[brentspeak]

50. Sure, just as soon as you personally

carry and receive your own letters and small packages from all around the country.

Happy driving and walking.

[DCBob]

57. USPS does some things well but..

The world is rapidly changing and the USPS has to evolve like all other businesses to keep up.

[brentspeak]

52. Nov. 15, 2011: Pension payments resumed

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20111115/DEPARTMENTS02/111150304/

[Snake Alchemist]

62. Thanks!!!

I had not realized they had resumed.

[girl gone mad]

54. You're repeatedly posting outdated information.

What's with all of the willful ignorance around here lately?

[Snake Alchemist]

63. Hadn't realized they had resumed.

The point was that they were still losing money after they stopped contributing to the pension. Technology has severely impacted them.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

47. Doesn't the constitution say....

there shall only be one post office?

[girl gone mad]

55. No..

Post offices, plural.

Section 8.

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]

70. Alrighty, my bad then

[lunatica]

59. I'm thankful our wonderful postman has a chance to retire instead of being laid off

I hope many postal workers choose to retire and the number of laid off younger people is diminished because of it.

[WCIL]

69. My sister got the news on Wednesday

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.