Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Post Office reports record loss of 15.9 BILLION this year.

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 37 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 4:53:52 PM PST
Anthony says:
i want those jobs.

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 4:31:07 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Nov 16, 2012 4:31:46 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 4:24:59 PM PST
RJMacReady says:
Yeah. That's what they START you at. For a job that doesn't require a degree.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 4:23:41 PM PST
RJMacReady says:
They retire young, too, don't they?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 4:21:39 PM PST
RJMacReady says:
I tend to be liberal, but I see no reason why they couldn't privatize the post office. There already are private shipping companies like UPS. Let them take over the mail business completely.

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 4:14:45 PM PST

Despite nearly $16 billion in annual losses announced by the U.S. Postal Service on Thursday, all but one of the top five executives for the nation's mail service had an overall compensation increase this year, records show.

Unlike past years, when the Postal Service's politically appointed, bipartisan board of governors awarded executives lucrative deferred compensation deals and incentive bonuses, this year's compensation increases came mostly in the form of pension plan earnings.

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe , for instance, earned a base salary of $276,840, but even without a bonus or incentive payout, his overall compensation came to $512,093, compared with $384,229 in 2011, according to regulatory filings.

Fueling the rise was the fact that his retirement account grew by $186,536. A 37-year employee of the Postal Service, Mr. Donahoe was paid $4.76 per hour during his first job as a postal clerk.

Meanwhile, two other executives - Ellis Burgoyne , chief information officer, and Mary Anne Gibbons, general counsel - also received hefty increases in their retirement plans.

In fact, Mr. Burgoyne 's retirement plan grew by more than $270,000, bringing his total compensation to $510,505, slightly less than Mr. Donahoe `s.

Compensation for Joseph Corbett , the Postal Service's chief financial officer, rose from $310,483 in 2011 to $315,841 last year, though he earned more than $330,000 in 2010.

In addition, the Postal Service's chief human resources officer, Anthony J. Vegilante, received $60,000 in retention bonuses for fiscal 2011 and 2012 on top of his $240,000 annual salary, filings show. Nonetheless, Mr. Vegilante's overall compensation for 2012 dipped to $363,002, compared with $364,667 the previous year.

A sixth postal executive, acting Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Stephen Masse, was not subject to compensation reporting requirements until this year, and he earned $222,919 overall.

Dave Partenheimer , a Postal Service spokesman, said the organization has more than a half-million workers and operates more than 32,000 locations. He said postal executive compensation lags compared with private-sector corporations.

"As we continue to adjust to a changing business environment, it's important that we recruit and retain the forward-thinking leadership we need to continue to remain viable," he said. "Compensation is important to that equation."

Unlike most private companies, however, the Postal Service has borrowed billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury and has a legal monopoly over first-class mail service.

Total compensation for top postal executives is capped at $276,840, based on a rule that executives can't earn more than 120 percent of the salary of the vice president of the United States. But the board of governors, which approves executive compensation for the Postal Service, can authorize hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation payments.

The Washington Times reported last year, for instance, that retired Postmaster General John E. Potter, now chief executive of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, was still owed more than $800,000 in deferred compensation payments with payouts scheduled over a decade.

In an annual financial report released Thursday, the board noted that no performance awards would be paid in 2012 because of the Postal Service's "dire financial condition."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 11:25:37 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 11:27:43 PM PST
Jawwaad says:
We might just come from 2 different worlds Bear because $40K a year is a lot where I'm from. I know many construction workers, HVAC workers, and other intense labor workers who don't start out at that much money a year. I don't really think it is as hard as some make it out to be. Although you posed some incidents where they might have a chance to get hurt, I don't think that is the norm as I see construction workers and others getting hurt on a more frequent basis, plus working harder for far less pay.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 11:07:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 11:09:11 PM PST
Modern Bear says:
That is still 10k below the median income for the United States, so it's really not that good of pay. It's not an easy job either. They have to walk a heck of a lot, all day long, in all types of weather. They have to worry about being robbed by some nutcase (it does happen), attacked by dogs, hit by a car, or any number of things that can happen when delivering mail to some places that may not be the best environment for walking around. I would bet they get sick or hurt quite frequently.

Don't blame the workers for the Post Office's problems. It's gross mismanagement by Congress that has caused their issues. This tends to be the case in nearly every single instance when you put politicians in charge of something. You get incredible amounts of waste, bad decisions that make no sense, and a refusal to change things for the better because that might be admitting they were wrong, which simply cannot happen.

I would hate having the job of Postmaster General. He knows the problems they face, has ideas on how to fix it, but has no power to do anything about it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 10:57:49 PM PST
Jawwaad says:
"$20 an hour is not that great for pay in 2012"

$40K a year is pretty damn good in my opinion as a starting salary to deliver mail.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 10:24:46 PM PST
And they call it 'Going Postal' for a reason. They have hard jobs for the most part IMO...I know I wouldn't want to be delivering GTA V to the roughest ghettos for anything less than $20/hour...

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 10:05:29 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 10:06:27 PM PST
Modern Bear says:
$20 an hour is not that great for pay in 2012. That would only be 41,600 a year if you worked 40 hours a week with no overtime, which is lower than median income. It's the benefits that really rock for postal employees. But even that is not the only problem with their finances. There is a lot of waste on services that are not needed that the Post Office has not been able to trim because Congress won't let them. They have had trouble closing redundant branches (two branches a few blocks from each other for example) because some Congressman blocks it, although they've made some progress on this in recent years. They've been wanting to cut back to 5 days a week delivery but have not been able to. Would anyone really care if Saturday delivery went away?

It would probably be better if the Post Office went completely independent of government control and oversight so they can make the changes necessary to stay in business but that's not going to happen. Any suggestion of such will bring all the government control freaks out of the woodwork, and they'll demagogue the issue to death with predictions of the universe exploding because something is fully privatized.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 9:32:14 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 9:48:42 PM PST
Anthony says:
UPS, FedEx, USPS, they all suck.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 9:07:16 PM PST
UPS does NOT always tell you when the package will arrive. The last package I received from them, I never even received a door hanger. USPS First Class works WONDERFULLY for video games though. I have never had an issue with that. If you go with the cheapest USPS rate, it'll get there slower, that's a given. Go with FC, and it'll generally make it across the country in maybe four days or so.

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 9:03:32 PM PST
My uncle recently retired from the post office. The benefits he gets are INSANE. It's no wonder they're broke.

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 9:00:40 PM PST
Zak Iarih says:
Good, ups ftw

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 7:56:31 PM PST
Of course you will, you are the seller in this scenario. You don't need good tracking. You can tell your customers it will take 4-7 days, and if it takes 7 days, you fullfilled your part of the bargain. However, the customer may very well care which of those days it will come, and the USPS does not say. They don't tell you when your package will arrive until after it arrives.

Let's say you are ordering some ammunition online. The post office says it may come anywhere from Monday to Thursday. You want to go home and pick up your ammunition as soon as possible, so that it doesn't get stolen or end up in the wrong hands. What do you do? Do you leave work and check every single day? With UPS, they will tell you in the morning if they are coming that day or not. USPS has no such system.

Or you are expecting a new video game and want to take that day off work. You can't do that if you don't know the exact day that the game will arrive.

Sometimes you don't care when something comes in, sometimes you care a lot. USPS being slow is one thing, USPS not being able to give you accurate tracking, it totally unacceptable in many situations. The best part about Amazon Prime is knowing the date something will come in. Sometimes, UPS runs early or runs late, but at least they usually notify you about that.

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 7:55:15 PM PST
AndrewA says:
The Post Office isn't actually losing money. They got screwed by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, signed by Bush. Here's the link to the article pointing out the real problem:

And here's the actual text from the law that screwed them:

`Sec. 8909a. Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund

`(a) There is in the Treasury of the United States a Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund which is administered by the Office of Personnel Management.

`(b) The Fund is available without fiscal year limitation for payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A).

`(c) The Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately invest, in interest-bearing securities of the United States such currently available portions of the Fund as are not immediately required for payments from the Fund. Such investments shall be made in the same manner as investments for the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund under section 8348.

`(d)(1) Not later than June 30, 2007, and by June 30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall compute the net present value of the future payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A) and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year.

`(2)(A) Not later than June 30, 2007, the Office shall compute, and by June 30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall recompute the difference between--

`(i) the net present value of the excess of future payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A) for current and future United States Postal Service annuitants as of the end of the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that year; and

`(ii)(I) the value of the assets of the Postal Retiree Health Benefits Fund as of the end of the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that year; and

`(II) the net present value computed under paragraph (1).

`(B) Not later than June 30, 2017, the Office shall compute, and by June 30 of each succeeding year shall recompute, a schedule including a series of annual installments which provide for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by September 30, 2056, or within 15 years, whichever is later, of the net present value determined under subparagraph (A), including interest at the rate used in that computation.

`(3)(A) The United States Postal Service shall pay into such Fund--

`(i) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2007;

`(ii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2008;

`(iii) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2009;

`(iv) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2010;

`(v) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2011;

`(vi) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2012;

`(vii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2013;

`(viii) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2014;

`(ix) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2015; and

`(x) $5,800,000,000, not later than September 30, 2016.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 6:54:15 PM PST
I find the USPS to be fine with tracking and about 1/3rd the price of UPS. For that price I'll take iffy tracking.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 6:53:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 6:53:33 PM PST
Not really.

"The Modern Postal Service: Agency or Business?
Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.

According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit."

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 6:50:51 PM PST
Cinema Fan says:
Not surprised. Their tracking is pathetic. I do all my shipping via UPS.

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 6:15:12 PM PST
after all the letters and packages i've sent?

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 6:02:06 PM PST
c---kuta says:
The post office isn't supported by tax dollars. Why do people %$!*# about it so much?

The sad thing is they are a company trying to take care of their workers but can't.

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 5:23:08 PM PST
Soulshine says:
I think this might be the internet's fault.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 5:23:06 PM PST
I. Flores says:
>>Would you like me to start?<<

God, no.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 5:19:43 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 5:19:59 PM PST
I really don't compare many organization's losses to Sony's. Would you like me to start?
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  20
Total posts:  37
Initial post:  Nov 15, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 16, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions