It shouldn’t, though to some extent, it operating more efficiently can be a good thing if the efficiency gains can be gotten without significant detriment to service, because then more money is available for either improvements to the mail service or for other services. Profit does not impy efficiency of course, but making something more efficient can make it more profitable.
RepubliQans hate the USPS for reasons and have gone to extraordinary lengths to injure it. It’s bullshit. Fuck that.
They are a service, like the army is a service. It costs taxpayer money and they’re out here selling pencils in a cup to make barely enough to pay everyone. Fund them properly, for fuck’s sake.
This ‘efficiency’ hit us a few years ago as one of the cities mentioned in the article. Since DeJoy’s changes, our local sorting facility was shut down and if I want to mail a letter to my neighbor, they drive it an hour north, sort it, and then drive it an hour south where it’s then put on a truck for delivery.
I’m not arguing that this idea in particular is necessarily a good one, just that the concept of making the service more efficient has merit. Obviously, to actually see the benefits, the idea in question has to actually succeed at making the service more efficient.
the concept of making the service more efficient has merit
I’m really not sure it does. USPS needs to serve all citizens, regardless of efficiency. Just the fact of having to be everywhere for everyone necessarily means accepting all sorts of situations that can never be efficient, but nevertheless should have service
Somebody ask how much revenue their corporation’s IT dept generates. Then, ask the executives if they’d be fine if servers crashed, critical payment systems failed, and (God forbid!) their laptop stopped working…
The government as a whole shouldn’t have to worry about it. Republicans think the government should be run like a business when it is nothing like a business.
They think that it is like a business because it provides services and a business does too and they equate paying taxes with paying for restaurant food. It’s utter nonsense.
Postal service shouldn’t have to worry about operating at a profit.
It shouldn’t, though to some extent, it operating more efficiently can be a good thing if the efficiency gains can be gotten without significant detriment to service, because then more money is available for either improvements to the mail service or for other services. Profit does not impy efficiency of course, but making something more efficient can make it more profitable.
No. They’re strangled to pieces as it is.
RepubliQans hate the USPS for reasons and have gone to extraordinary lengths to injure it. It’s bullshit. Fuck that.
They are a service, like the army is a service. It costs taxpayer money and they’re out here selling pencils in a cup to make barely enough to pay everyone. Fund them properly, for fuck’s sake.
No it doesn’t. USPS does not receive taxpayer funds to operate. It’s all funded by postage and shipping services.
Edit: Since at least two of you don’t believe me: https://www.uspsoig.gov/focus-areas/did-you-know/do-my-tax-dollars-pay-postal-service
It should. Maybe take a few hundred million from the army that doesn’t even want it.
This ‘efficiency’ hit us a few years ago as one of the cities mentioned in the article. Since DeJoy’s changes, our local sorting facility was shut down and if I want to mail a letter to my neighbor, they drive it an hour north, sort it, and then drive it an hour south where it’s then put on a truck for delivery.
Ask his other efficiency and profit ideas are floundering.
I’m not arguing that this idea in particular is necessarily a good one, just that the concept of making the service more efficient has merit. Obviously, to actually see the benefits, the idea in question has to actually succeed at making the service more efficient.
I’m really not sure it does. USPS needs to serve all citizens, regardless of efficiency. Just the fact of having to be everywhere for everyone necessarily means accepting all sorts of situations that can never be efficient, but nevertheless should have service
Absolutely agree.
Somebody ask how much revenue their corporation’s IT dept generates. Then, ask the executives if they’d be fine if servers crashed, critical payment systems failed, and (God forbid!) their laptop stopped working…
The government as a whole shouldn’t have to worry about it. Republicans think the government should be run like a business when it is nothing like a business.
They think that it is like a business because it provides services and a business does too and they equate paying taxes with paying for restaurant food. It’s utter nonsense.