3 May 2017 4:08 pm
Parania sets in.Misty » 03 May 2017 3:33 pm » wrote: ****.
Their goal was to bankrupt the Postal Service so they could privatize it.
That's always been their goal.
No, I don't accept union propaganda, certainly not from a liar like you.
Here's a highly credible source with no dog in the fight.
If the Post Office was so financially sound, why were they seeking a taxpayer bailout, liar?
The Post Office is a great example of public employees unions lining their pockets and trying to stick taxpayers with the bill.
Post Offices Don’t Have to Be Dysfunctional
By Matt Thoman — September 7, 2011
Without emergency appropriations from Congress, the United States Postal Service will become insolvent by the end of September. It lost $8.5 billion in 2010 and is on track to lose at least as much this year. Its mail volume has declined precipitously, and overly generous labor contracts award annual raises and regular cost-of living adjustments to an overpaid, largely unskilled workforce, which also enjoys job security unrivaled in the private sector.
Despite its emerging insolvency, the Postal Service has shown little ability or inclination to reduce costs on its own, and its reform proposals skirt around the structural issues at the root of its problems. Its immediate problem: It simply cannot fund its short-term liabilities. Private-sector competitors FedEx and UPS — the latter despite being fully unionized by the Teamsters — spend about half their costs on labor; the Postal Service spends upwards of 80 percent. Thanks to its federally-mandated monopoly on first-class mail and periodic government support, there has never been any significant incentive to reduce costs. Over time, this has resulted in enormous concessions made to organized labor, the most egregious of which is the “no-layoff” clause for employees with over six years of service. To remain fiscally sustainable, the Postal Service will need to overcome union dissent and shrink its workforce by over 220,000 workers, which is well-nigh impossible without layoffs.
As an alternative, the Postal Service has suggested that the Office of Personnel Management (which manages its retirement fund) return $270 billion in contributions the Postal Service has made toward its worker retirement programs, and that Congress grant immediate access to $42.5 billion that the Postal Service has contributed toward its retirement health-care program. The Postal Service claims that it can design and operate its own retirement and health-care programs at a lower cost. However, the Postal Accountability & Enhancement Act of 2006 already alleviated nearly $30 billion in retirement liabilities for the Postal Service to set up a retirement health-care plan for its workers. No such retirement health-care plan emerged.
Giving the Postal Service more money without accountability is a non-starter in the current Congress, and also obscures the bigger picture: Wages and benefits are climbing but revenue is falling. In the last four years, mail volume fell by 20 percent due to declines in direct-mail (a.k.a. junk mail), as businesses moved more interactions with their consumers to the Internet. If the Postal Service were a private company, it would have gone out of business years ago.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27 ... att-thoman