Stop Staples Taking Over the USPS Offices

[newyorkguy]

For example, in fast food you have a limited menu and customers are expected to know what they want...

There is another problem here that American society is only beginning to address.

Maybe if post offices were replaced with Staples, first-class mail might be 42 cents instead of the current 49 cents. Who knows. That might save us some money in the short term. How about long term?

This isn't free. We're "saving ourselves" money in this instance by downgrading employees from relatively well-paid postal employees to lower paying jobs, often part-time positions usually with no benefits. That's the current business model. Cut costs to the bone and offer lesser service but for a lower price to the consumer.

Only most of those employees in those low-paying jobs than qualify for things like subsidized housing, subsidized health care and food stamps. Who pays for that? Aren't costs merely being transferred from the private sector to the taxpayer?

When I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s I was taught in school that American workers were among the highest paid (and not incidentally, among the most productive) workers in the world. That was supposed to be why American society was a vibrant society. People made adequate money to support a family, to buy a house, a new car, to go on vacations. That meant the average American worker had a lot to protect. They were motivated and responsible. [ETA-They also pumped a lot of money back into the American economy.]

If we continue to expand the number of poorly paid workers, employees who don't earn enough money to adequately care for themselves much less raise a family, creating an underclass with much lower expectations than previous generations, what does that do to our society long term? I think we're already seeing what it does.

 

[Gallstones]

I am not feeling a lot of sympathy for the USPS.

Two envelopes, same physical parameters of dimension and weight but different contents.

The one containing written or printed material/documents goes for the lesser postage, the one containing something other than written or printed documents has to go for the parcel rate which can be two to three times letter rate.

WHY!?

That and the condescending reaction of the clerk when told what was in the envelope.

 

[Brainster]

This may not apply if you don't live in the US, and you may disagree, fine - go away .

I rely on the post office because I sell a lot on EBay. I'm familiar with the move by the right wing in the government to make it look like the post office would be better run by private companies. They passed legislation putting an economic burden on the post office no private company is required to do, that is to send millions in profits every year to the US treasury under the premise this is needed to guarantee pensions.

USPS workers are covered under federal pensions, which is another thing that no private company is allowed to do.

 

[Mudcat]

Yeah, people without computers don't get bills or have to pay them. Lucky punks!

Not what I'm saying, either. If you think it is you need to go back and read my post again. Slowly. Until you comprehend it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

USPS workers are covered under federal pensions, which is another thing that no private company is allowed to do.

Wasn't that a carry-over from the US Post Office? The workers transitioned from a federal job and had their pensions to consider.

 

[DragonLady]

I absolutely depend on the Post Office to make a living. I'm 30 miles from town, and if I had to make the drive to town five days a week it would bankrupt my business. I'm absolutely against seeing it privatized because I know if it is I'll lose my ability to work from my home.

 

[marplots]

There is another problem here that American society is only beginning to address.

Maybe if post offices were replaced with Staples, first-class mail might be 42 cents instead of the current 49 cents. Who knows. That might save us some money in the short term. How about long term?

Money saved in the short term is money saved in the long term. Or can be, depending on what you do with it.

This isn't free. We're "saving ourselves" money in this instance by downgrading employees from relatively well-paid postal employees to lower paying jobs, often part-time positions usually with no benefits. That's the current business model. Cut costs to the bone and offer lesser service but for a lower price to the consumer.

Yes, of course. The question is whether those services are worth having for the price. I could make the same argument you are making for having a secretary, so I could dictate my letter instead of writing it myself. There's a scale here already. We accept it. All we are talking about is moving along that scale to a different setting.

Only most of those employees in those low-paying jobs than qualify for things like subsidized housing, subsidized health care and food stamps. Who pays for that? Aren't costs merely being transferred from the private sector to the taxpayer?

You mean taxpayers like Staples or some other kind of tax payer? Remember, although wages are in the mix, other things, like infrastructure (e.g., keeping the building heated in the winter) in there too. But yes, lowering wages has an impact on the economy. We can't however, simply say that every lowered wage is inappropriate or immune - it depends on the job. And here, we can look at other companies (FedEx, UPS) to see the norm.

When I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s I was taught in school that American workers were among the highest paid (and not incidentally, among the most productive) workers in the world. That was supposed to be why American society was a vibrant society. People made adequate money to support a family, to buy a house, a new car, to go on vacations. That meant the average American worker had a lot to protect. They were motivated and responsible. [ETA-They also pumped a lot of money back into the American economy.]

If we continue to expand the number of poorly paid workers, employees who don't earn enough money to adequately care for themselves much less raise a family, creating an underclass with much lower expectations than previous generations, what does that do to our society long term? I think we're already seeing what it does.

I think someone could live fairly cheaply if they agreed to live at the standards of the 1960s or earlier. Off the top of my head, I'd save a few hundred a month by dropping my cellphone, cable, and a chunk of healthcare. Housing would still be a major expense.

In any case, wage deflation is a separate issue from making our public services as inexpensive and efficient as possible. Unless we want USPS to be a kind of jobs program.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I absolutely depend on the Post Office to make a living. I'm 30 miles from town, and if I had to make the drive to town five days a week it would bankrupt my business. I'm absolutely against seeing it privatized because I know if it is I'll lose my ability to work from my home.

If the USPS goes down you can blame the pro-business party, the GOP. They are getting a little crazy looking for fresh victims.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Has there every been a ruling as to whether the Constitution requires Congress to establish a post office or merely allows them to?

ETA: I suppose I could go through the list of enumerated powers and see if there are any the Congress isn't acting on.

 

[newyorkguy]

If the USPS goes down you can blame the pro-business party, the GOP. They are getting a little crazy looking for fresh victims.

Sure. But as a local (very local) Democratic party leader told me the other day:

If you look at some of the things the Republicans have proposed, look to see who the most negative impact is on. That'll give you a pretty good idea who it is they're after.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Their whole program seems built on victimizing somebody or other.

 

[Mudcat]

I absolutely depend on the Post Office to make a living. I'm 30 miles from town, and if I had to make the drive to town five days a week it would bankrupt my business. I'm absolutely against seeing it privatized because I know if it is I'll lose my ability to work from my home.

And society should shoulder the burden of keeping the USPS in order to keep home run businesses in business... Why, exactly?

Edited to add: I'm not trying to sound cruel or callous here, I'm merely curious. We have a huge part of the population slaving away in offices, factories, restaurants, and more who are getting by making ends meet, and a small (but ever growing) part of the population living below the poverty line. Why should we be concerned with the minority of people who don't put any hours into any kind of labor working from their homes?

 

[TragicMonkey]

And society should shoulder the burden of keeping the USPS in order to keep home run businesses in business... Why, exactly?

You could ask that of each and every thing society does that every single member of society doesn't use. I don't have kids, why should I pay for public schools? I don't have cancer, why should my tax money support research? I don't eat at Subway, therefore why should the health department inspect them? There are entire states I've never set foot in, why should my military defend them?

 

[Mister Earl]

I think replacing or killing off the USPS is a bad idea. OP is right, I think. If USPS goes away, the rest will collude, divide up the market share, not compete, and service will plummet. Look at the cable companies in this country... little to no competition in most areas, poor quality at high expense. And I say that working for one of those cable companies (albeit a tiny one and not a big name).

 

[TragicMonkey]

Edited to add: I'm not trying to sound cruel or callous here, I'm merely curious. We have a huge part of the population slaving away in offices, factories, restaurants, and more who are getting by making ends meet, and a small (but ever growing) part of the population living below the poverty line. Why should we be concerned with the minority of people who don't put any hours into any kind of labor working from their homes?

What the damn? Are you really suggesting that working from home isn't work? I would ask what century you're in, but there have been people working in their homes since before civilization even began. That you can't conceive of that means you're not only lacking imagination but you're also quite out-of-touch with the real world.

 

[marplots]

What the damn? Are you really suggesting that working from home isn't work? I would ask what century you're in, but there have been people working in their homes since before civilization even began. That you can't conceive of that means you're not only lacking imagination but you're also quite out-of-touch with the real world.

Preach it brother! Preach on.

I refer to it as "homing from work." I never get to punch out. I eat, sleep, and bathe at work. But it ain't like real work. It's harder than that.

 

[Mudcat]

You could ask that of each and every thing society does that every single member of society doesn't use.

No, you couldn't.

I don't have kids, why should I pay for public schools? I don't have cancer, why should my tax money support research? I don't eat at Subway, therefore why should the health department inspect them? There are entire states I've never set foot in, why should my military defend them?

False analogies are false.

 

[marplots]

I don't have much fear of this whole thing going bad because the post office intersects with so much of the public. I can't imagine they will be able to sneak anything by without a huge hue and cry from the hoi polloi.

But I guess we'll find out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or, alternatively, an innovative leap forward.

Only if you believe the false narrative, the post office is poorly run, and didn't notice Staples actually is.

 

[shemp]

And society should shoulder the burden of keeping the USPS in order to keep home run businesses in business... Why, exactly?

Edited to add: I'm not trying to sound cruel or callous here, I'm merely curious. We have a huge part of the population slaving away in offices, factories, restaurants, and more who are getting by making ends meet, and a small (but ever growing) part of the population living below the poverty line. Why should we be concerned with the minority of people who don't put any hours into any kind of labor working from their homes?

Where the hell do you get off making a ridiculous claim like that? My wife operates a small business right here in our living room, and she puts in hours every day creating beading and jewelry pieces to sell, operates her websites, packs and ships pieces, etc. Tell her she puts no hours into labor.

I'd have more to say but forum rules prevent me.