Editorial: Drop protest on postal cuts

Editorial: Drop protest on postal cuts

There are 12 comments on the Chico Enterprise-Record story from May 6, 2010, titled Editorial: Drop protest on postal cuts. In it, Chico Enterprise-Record reports that:

Our view: The Postal Service lost $6 billion last year. It stands to reason that expenses must be cut.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chico Enterprise-Record.

“Who is John Galt?”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#1 May 6, 2010
Without massive cost cutting the USPS will have to borrow even more more money from the US treasury than they already have.

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d10455high.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Rocky

Redding, CA

#2 May 6, 2010
dbski4it, you are a fool ! The Postal Service is the only branch of the government that pays for itself !

“Who is John Galt?”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#3 May 6, 2010
Rocky wrote:
dbski4it, you are a fool ! The Postal Service is the only branch of the government that pays for itself !
Rocky, Rocky, Rocky

Please go back and read the first sentence of the ER editorial. The USPS lost $6 BILLION last year (just one year).
Tom banks

Raleigh, NC

#4 May 6, 2010
The postal servic no tax dallors not since 1986. They are regulated by the Fed gov. which expects them not to loose money but they are not suppose to make money, just break even. when gas prices went up they really took a big hit. You dont see a fedx or ups office in every little town.
postal carrier

Seattle, WA

#5 May 6, 2010
If the government would return our pension overpayment we would be profitable. Problem with us being profitable is then he government has less to spend and the workers that generated that profit would have earned a pay raise. Can't give workers a pay raise and keep other workers happy without a pay raise and then where would congress get all those $$$ to spend. POWER+MONEY=CORRUPTION
jporter

Chico, CA

#6 May 6, 2010
postal carrier wrote:
If the government would return our pension overpayment we would be profitable. Problem with us being profitable is then he government has less to spend and the workers that generated that profit would have earned a pay raise. Can't give workers a pay raise and keep other workers happy without a pay raise and then where would congress get all those $$$ to spend. POWER+MONEY=CORRUPTION
why r u writng here in chico? stay in washington!
postal carrier

Seattle, WA

#7 May 6, 2010
jporter wrote:
<quoted text> why r u writng here in chico? stay in washington!
What would make you think I'm not in WA ??? I'm using a NEW tool & it's called the internet. Al Gore invented it. Thanks for your meaningful contribution. Topic is cutting expenses at the post office. I'm for upper/middle management being cut to reflect a reasonable management to worker ratio. I'm also wondering why they got HUGE bone-us payments after our worst year ever. Did you know potter was supposed to be paid $265k but his actual cost was $850K. DURING OUR WORST YEAR EVER ??? If we'd have had a good year would we have had to buy him Disneyland ???
Archy

Yuba City, CA

#8 May 6, 2010
The no-brainer here is the lack of understanding by the editor who wrote this piece. As I understand it, the savings claimed are mostly employee costs. However, labor agreements require the postal service to keep all those employees, so there are no real savings.

The other thing the Congressmen were concerned about is that the West Sac branch cannot do ag inspections and protect farm products, like they do in Marysville. The $6 billion USPS is losing each year would seem like nothing if a really bad bug gets mailed into California and destros the crops.

Oops.... the editor forgot to mention (or think about) that.
postal carrier

Seattle, WA

#9 May 7, 2010
"However,labor agreements require the postal service to keep all those employees, so there are no real savings." 1. not all postal employees have layoff protection. 2. postal service could/should offer early out incentives to encourage older employees to retire. That would reduce the work force. 3. If a contract like YOU think existed wouldn't management be partially responsible ? 4. the $$$ the government requires the po to pay to pre-fund the workers health care is about what we lose. 5. That same government overcharged the po 75 billion in retirement over payments. If you're going to "use" the internet to post opinions I'd just ask that you don't ignore facts or state your (WRONG) opinions as fact.
dbski4it from oakieland

Chico, CA

#10 May 8, 2010
dbski4it wrote:
<quoted text>
Rocky, Rocky, Rocky
Please go back and read the first sentence of the ER editorial. The USPS lost $6 BILLION last year (just one year).
please usps alone
SaneChicoan

Yuba City, CA

#11 May 8, 2010
Archy wrote:
...labor agreements require the postal service to keep all those employees, so there are no real savings.
Then the agreements need to be broken. What horrifying shortsightedness to have not seen this coming for the last 20 years. Why are postal employees exempt from reality? It's really too bad technology moves at 100 times the speed of entitled unions and fatcat managers.

If the only legal way out of this is to shut it down and privatize, we should do that.
postal carrier

Seattle, WA

#12 May 8, 2010
SaneChicoan wrote:
<quoted text> Then the agreements need to be broken. What horrifying shortsightedness to have not seen this coming for the last 20 years. Why are postal employees exempt from reality? It's really too bad technology moves at 100 times the speed of entitled unions and fatcat managers.
If the only legal way out of this is to shut it down and privatize, we should do that.
I want to buy a car from you. I'll pay anything and then break the contract. Nice idea Mr Honorable. Didn't you read my post where I said that wasn't true. I believe anyone with less that 6 years seniority can be laid off (hard to remember specifics when I had 31+). Can our economy afford to absorb 50k new unemployed workers ? Why is the po failing ? Could it be bad management ? Could it be our postmaster got paid $850k on a $265k salary in our worst year ever ? Could it be a problem when management at headquarters (the expensive folks) INCREASED 34% since 2000 while workers DECREASED 20%+? As long as I'm asking questions-Why would anyone take a physically tough job that was part time, in a failing business, and with no future ? What happened to the $$$ when we made a profit ?(Government used it to pay down the deficit. Would be nice to have gotten credit for it !) I'm sorry to ask questions about something you know nothing about, but you posted your "great" idea.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Granite Bay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Sacramento sucks more than: (Jan '09) Jan 29 Spartan45 122
Judge Francis A. Kearney / Placer County Judici... (Jan '13) Jan 27 Fathers4Justice 28
placer County courts & the corruption continues (Apr '16) Jan 23 Jack 16
Anybody know Leilani Herr. Jan 20 Dave 1
News Home Front: Loan prepayment penalty angers borr... (Jul '08) Jan 19 Blueyss 2
Urgent Carr Clinics Jan 18 Ronnie 1
Need to know Jan '18 silly billy 2

Granite Bay Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Granite Bay Mortgages