PDA

View Full Version : Postal Chief's $384,000 Pay Sparks Call for Cut



Stoney
03-05-2012, 07:11 AM
The chief of the struggling U.S. Postal Service received $384,229 in compensation last year -- and at least one lawmaker thinks he should take a paycut.

Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, decried top U.S. Postal Service salaries in a letter this week to the board governing the service. Tester wants top postal executives to cut their own salaries and bonuses as they move to cut mail delivery services and close postal plants and offices, laying off tens of thousands of workers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/postal-chief-s--384-000-pay-sparks-call-for-cut.html

Will Sen. Tester refuse his own salary until we get a balanced budget and the debt paid down?

MMC
03-05-2012, 07:40 AM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/postal-chief-s--384-000-pay-sparks-call-for-cut.html

Will Sen. Tester refuse his own salary until we get a balanced budget and the debt paid down?

Good piece there Stoney. I agree will the Politicians take their hands out the til of the post office.
What is your take on the Post office Issues?

Stoney
03-05-2012, 08:25 AM
I don't know the exact figure, but the Post Office is somewhere in the area of 15 billion dollars in debt. The reason they are in debt is much the same as why Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are running red. Our politicians want to be re-elected and we're naive enough to believe we can get increases in benefits and not meet costs.

Mail volume for the Post Office peaked somewhere in the mid 90's with about 700,000 employees. Our population has also been increasing. Mail volume is now deceasing. In the mid 90's a mail carrier might have averaged 6 pieces of mail per box per delivery day. I wasn't able to find current numbers but would guess at about two per box. Obviously if mail volume is down revenue is down. What is not so obvious is that it still takes nearly the same number of mail carriers to deliver 2 pieces of mail per box as 6 pieces per box.

The Post Office has been trying to close unprofitable offices and eliminate Saturday delivery for years. Politicians yield to constituents who want their post office close by and want Saturday delivery, but don't need it. Eliminating Saturday delivery would eliminate the need for what I will term "relief carrier" who carry a route on the regular carriers day off. That "relief carrier" relives five routes, five carriers. You can do the numbers.

But in the end the problem won't be fixed any more than Social Security or Medicare. Politicians aren't interested in fixing the problem. They're interested in being re-elected. Sen. Tester knows that almost all of the Postal Employees are union/association members, craft and management. The unions/associations will support politicians who seek no solution while fighting against those who do seek solutions.

Glad you asked.

MMC
03-05-2012, 09:02 AM
Great surmise Stoney. Both have been tearing the one program that was created and was working. But you are right with the Advent of the Unions and the Politicans consistently with their hand in the til. Have proven once again just how inept these two partys are.

Moreover now that they have allowed Retails Stores to place magazines in newspapers. Plus Local and Country Property assessments. They costed the PO even more money. Newspapers in the Chicagoland area such as Trib who now owns all the others, are averaging anywheres between 3-7lbs during the month of Febuary. Even Sunday papers are hugh with all the ads in them.

They say costs of making 2 off adds also means they are losing about 7 dollars off of print. Still this was money that was taken from the post office. Course I would like to see how many would choose not to be in a union if they were offered that chance.

I know a lot of Seniors look to get mail on Sat. but truthfully I could see 90 of mail being elimnated for that day. Although that does give the PO a cahnce to push up those next day deliveries, and or 2/3 day service.

Also wasnt there something about pols taking from their pensions or not paying in? I mean I could see GOP Pols not doing so. But then to have those Demos snatching their money. One would think they wouldn't have pushed for so many Democratic Candidates.

Conley
03-05-2012, 09:42 AM
Yes MMC, the reason the Post Office is in "debt" is because the politicians have required them to pay the retirement contributions of employees they haven't even hired yet. It's all an accounting act to make it seem like the deficit is smaller than it is.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/1122-What-Congress-Doesn-t-Want-You-To-Know-About-the-Post-Office

In fact, it's the Postal Service that’s currently bailing out the U.S. government. Politicians have been raiding Postal Service revenues for years, using them to make the federal deficit appear smaller than it really is. The fiscal gyrations are so twisted that the Postal Service is right now forced to pre-pay health care benefits for employees the agency hasn't even hired yet — in fact, for many future employees who haven't even been born yet — all to artificially shrink the federal deficit.

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...l-service-woes (http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8191425-twisted-government-accounting-behind-postal-service-woes)

The Post Office's annual revenue is $65 Billion a year, which would be in the top 50 of private companies. Of course no private company would pay healthcare costs for employees they haven't hired yet 75 years into the future. They are forced to do that to keep military pensions off the Treasury's books (and make the deficit seem lower than it really is).

Like Social Security the Pols have raided it time and again to spend, spend, spend. Read the link if you want to know more!

MMC
03-05-2012, 09:47 AM
Yes MMC, the reason the Post Office is in "debt" is because the politicians have required them to pay the retirement contributions of employees they haven't even hired yet. It's all an accounting act to make it seem like the deficit is smaller than it is.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/1122-What-Congress-Doesn-t-Want-You-To-Know-About-the-Post-Office

In fact, it's the Postal Service that’s currently bailing out the U.S. government. Politicians have been raiding Postal Service revenues for years, using them to make the federal deficit appear smaller than it really is. The fiscal gyrations are so twisted that the Postal Service is right now forced to pre-pay health care benefits for employees the agency hasn't even hired yet — in fact, for many future employees who haven't even been born yet — all to artificially shrink the federal deficit.

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...l-service-woes (http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8191425-twisted-government-accounting-behind-postal-service-woes)

The Post Office's annual revenue is $65 Billion a year, which would be in the top 50 of private companies. Of course no private company would pay healthcare costs for employees they haven't hired yet 75 years into the future. They are forced to do that to keep military pensions off the Treasury's books (and make the deficit seem lower than it really is).

Like Social Security the Pols have raided it time and again to spend, spend, spend. Read the link if you want to know more!


Are you for stopping Saturday mail too? Think there is a way to save them?

Conley
03-05-2012, 09:51 AM
I'd be ok with that if it was to save money, but if the politicians keep raiding them it won't matter either way. That's the thing - these DC pols deceive and whine about a $300,000 salary when in fact it's their own actions that have driven the PO to destruction. They do this with so many subjects...like an illusionist with distraction, they don't want you to see what the other hand is doing.

Conley
03-05-2012, 03:26 PM
Another reason the Pols are pushing to close the Post Office is because Fed Ex is spending millions on lobbying efforts. Fed Ex wants that huge government contract and they'll probably get it eventually.

Alias
03-05-2012, 04:01 PM
A private company will run more efficiently.

This is what happens when you let politicians use the taxpayer's money to buy votes.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 05:09 PM
Is this scapegoat material?

I'm all for slamming gubmint on wasteful spending, but what does this guy do in comparison to his counterpart at say Federal Express and what does his counterpart at Federal Express make?

Maybe this guy is earning a market salary for what he's doing.

Conley
03-05-2012, 05:17 PM
Is this scapegoat material?

I'm all for slamming gubmint on wasteful spending, but what does this guy do in comparison to his counterpart at say Federal Express and what does his counterpart at Federal Express make?

Maybe this guy is earning a market salary for what he's doing.

It is classic political misdirection.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 05:18 PM
I just want to know the economics of the situation before I cast judgment on anything.

Maybe this guy is a bargain.

Conley
03-05-2012, 05:20 PM
The "company" had revenue of 65 Billion last year, so you tell me if you think he's worth 350k.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 05:22 PM
The "company" brought in 65 Billion last year, so you tell me if you think he's worth 350k.

I don't know what his title means and how far up the food chain he is. I think the Postmaster General is the head of all things USPS but if he's #2, his counterpart (not even adjusting for the revenue difference) would probably be making, I dunno - 10, 20 times what he's making.

I just wonder where he lines up in the organization.

Conley
03-05-2012, 05:27 PM
I don't know what his title means and how far up the food chain he is. I think the Postmaster General is the head of all things USPS but if he's #2, his counterpart (not even adjusting for the revenue difference) would probably be making, I dunno - 10, 20 times what he's making.

I just wonder where he lines up in the organization.

Got it. From the article:

"Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe received a base salary of $271,871 in 2011, according to a November filing by the service with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But he also made another $81,954 in pension and deferred compensation. And he benefited from $30,404 in "other" compensation, including security costs, life insurance premiums, parking and financial planning services."

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 05:38 PM
Wait - I misread this, he is the PMG.

Hell, that's a bargain.

MMC
03-05-2012, 06:12 PM
Well if they were counting his pensions and other securities. We know he didn't get those as they came out with the piece that their pensions had been raided. Or is that an account of what he should have been getting. Why does this Federal Program need a Union in the first place?

Stoney
03-05-2012, 07:41 PM
Yes MMC, the reason the Post Office is in "debt" is because the politicians have required them to pay the retirement contributions of employees they haven't even hired yet. It's all an accounting act to make it seem like the deficit is smaller than it is.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/1122-What-Congress-Doesn-t-Want-You-To-Know-About-the-Post-Office

In fact, it's the Postal Service that’s currently bailing out the U.S. government. Politicians have been raiding Postal Service revenues for years, using them to make the federal deficit appear smaller than it really is. The fiscal gyrations are so twisted that the Postal Service is right now forced to pre-pay health care benefits for employees the agency hasn't even hired yet — in fact, for many future employees who haven't even been born yet — all to artificially shrink the federal deficit.

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...l-service-woes (http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8191425-twisted-government-accounting-behind-postal-service-woes)

The Post Office's annual revenue is $65 Billion a year, which would be in the top 50 of private companies. Of course no private company would pay healthcare costs for employees they haven't hired yet 75 years into the future. They are forced to do that to keep military pensions off the Treasury's books (and make the deficit seem lower than it really is).

Like Social Security the Pols have raided it time and again to spend, spend, spend. Read the link if you want to know more!

I suppose the pension fund has something to do with cash flow, but my little bit of accounting suggests that it doesn't reflect a loss. Even if it did an article http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-22/news/29968599_1_end-saturday-delivery-postal-workers-health-benefits shows the amount at less than 7 billion dollars. Maybe I recall that OMB used to fund the pension funds even in 2000 or 2001 complaining of the losses they were taking and the requirement for the PO to pre-fund them did hurt cash flow.

I'm speaking as a retired management staff and manager in the Post Office. No, I didn't make that kind of money.

Mainecoons
03-05-2012, 07:43 PM
Why should any government employee, the most overpaid, overprotected and underworked employees ever, need to be in a union, let alone allowed in one. Hell even FDR knew what a bad idea this is.

The post office would have long since downsized and restructured its services if it were a private organization. First class mail has dropped to nothing, FedEx, UPS and the rest have taken overnight mail and parcel post. Anything that can go by snail mail doesn't need to be delivered daily. Three times per week should suffice. That alone would cut the work force by 25 percent.

Stoney
03-05-2012, 07:51 PM
They could probably reduce the work force by 10% by just getting rid of union rules that require extra employees.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 08:12 PM
Parcel and letter delivery should be primarily privatized. The role of the USPS should be minimized for fringe delivery aspects only.

Mister D
03-05-2012, 08:22 PM
There is no corner of NJ where FedEx won't go but I'd imagine it's different in larger and less populous states.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 08:25 PM
There is no corner of NJ where FedEx won't go but I'd imagine it's different in larger and less populous states.

Yeah, that's part of the conundrum. The USPS in theory will deliver a package or letter to virtually anywhere. Add the fact that they have generations old infrastructure in place, those barriers to entry for privatization are huge.

I think there is a role for the USPS but it has to be reduced from the current state. Private companies, in my humble opinion, can do a much better job cheaper. On Saturdays also.

The USPS like any gubmint institution has a virtually unlimited resource to waste. Private companies don't, they have to be lean.

Not that this is any news to you.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 08:27 PM
Now having said that, in the scenario that, say FedEx becomes the largest letter and parcel delivery outfit in the US, I'm guessing the "chief" there will make a few sheckles more than $400k. As he should.

Conley
03-05-2012, 08:30 PM
Turning over huge government contracts to private companies can lead to massive corruption. I'm not really comfortable with the idea. As you guys know private companies also have a lot of waste. There are some advantages to the government providing the service, otherwise why not outsource everything? Dump the V.A. and have Blue Cross / Blue Shield take over everything. Forget the military and hire private security teams. So on and so forth. The difference is that private soldiers make a lot more than U.S. soldiers, the CEOs of UPS and Fed Ex make 10M and 7M respectively, and so on down the line as far as salaries go. It's not a 1:1 thing where having a private company in charge is going to guarantee savings. If you look around Congress a lot of these elected reps already don't have your best interests at heart so I don't know why we would want them cozying up even more to the industries that finance their campaigns and end up making them rich over the long haul.

Conley
03-05-2012, 08:33 PM
Fed Ex spent 50M in lobbying between 2008 - 2010. Let's hear some theories on why.

Mister D
03-05-2012, 08:33 PM
@ Captain

What do you think of what Conley posted earlier? Some have argued that the USPS has done very well but it's resources have been raided continually by the government. I gather from that that it's business model isn't poor but that politicians have interfered with its funding. I'm not really up to speed on this stuff so I defer to you guys.

Conley
03-05-2012, 08:36 PM
I suppose the pension fund has something to do with cash flow, but my little bit of accounting suggests that it doesn't reflect a loss. Even if it did an article http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-22/news/29968599_1_end-saturday-delivery-postal-workers-health-benefits shows the amount at less than 7 billion dollars. Maybe I recall that OMB used to fund the pension funds even in 2000 or 2001 complaining of the losses they were taking and the requirement for the PO to pre-fund them did hurt cash flow.

I'm speaking as a retired management staff and manager in the Post Office. No, I didn't make that kind of money.

Two separate issues I think...I'm not sure what time period that 7B is for but the link I provided shows the following:

"In 2002, an audit of the USPS budget found it had overpaid into the federal government's pension plan by roughly $80 billion."

Conley
03-05-2012, 08:39 PM
@ Captain

What do you think of what Conley posted earlier? Some have argued that the USPS has done very well but it's resources have been raided continually by the government. I gather from that that it's business model isn't poor but that politicians have interfered with its funding. I'm not really up to speed on this stuff so I defer to you guys.

Everything I've read about it supports that stand. IMO it's not a stretch when you consider how Congress has treated Social Security and Medicare.

Honestly I don't trust guys like Issa and Waxman to be up to speed on this stuff. Anyone who's watched Congressional hearings knows a lot of these people are probably less intelligent than the posters on this board. Not to get sidetracked, but Waxman didn't even know if the drinking age was 18 or 21 in this country. The combination of ignorance and greed is discouraging.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 08:42 PM
Turning over huge government contracts to private companies can lead to massive corruption. I'm not really comfortable with the idea. As you guys know private companies also have a lot of waste. There are some advantages to the government providing the service, otherwise why not outsource everything? Dump the V.A. and have Blue Cross / Blue Shield take over everything. Forget the military and hire private security teams. So on and so forth. The difference is that private soldiers make a lot more than U.S. soldiers, the CEOs of UPS and Fed Ex make 10M and 7M respectively, and so on down the line as far as salaries go. It's not a 1:1 thing where having a private company in charge is going to guarantee savings. If you look around Congress a lot of these elected reps already don't have your best interests at heart so I don't know why we would want them cozying up even more to the industries that finance their campaigns and end up making them rich over the long haul.

Who said anything about privatizing our military?

All large organizations have waste. The difference is, gubmint wast is absorbed by our pocketbooks in the form of more taxes. Private waste if it's excessive enough is absorbed by other private institutions after bankruptcy.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 08:44 PM
Fed Ex spent 50M in lobbying between 2008 - 2010. Let's hear some theories on why.

That's a whole other ball of wax where I'm more than happy to grab my pitchfork to protest getting Wall St. and PA Avenue out of being in bed together. Whole other matter.

Am I sensing a "big companies are bad" thought process?

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 08:45 PM
@ Captain

What do you think of what Conley posted earlier? Some have argued that the USPS has done very well but it's resources have been raided continually by the government. I gather from that that it's business model isn't poor but that politicians have interfered with its funding. I'm not really up to speed on this stuff so I defer to you guys.

The same thing can be said to some degree about Medicare.

Gives those teabaggers a lot of stage to dance on also.

Conley
03-05-2012, 08:46 PM
That's a whole other ball of wax where I'm more than happy to grab my pitchfork to protest getting Wall St. and PA Avenue out of being in bed together. Whole other matter.

Am I sensing a "big companies are bad" thought process?

No, you're sensing "a big companies aren't necessarily cheaper" thought process. They're spending 50M in lobbying because they stand to make many times that if they can convince everyone that the Post Office is a financial black hole, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 08:52 PM
No, you're sensing "a big companies aren't necessarily cheaper" thought process. They're spending 50M in lobbying because they stand to make many times that if they can convince everyone that the Post Office is a financial black hole, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

I'll pull out my broad painting brush on this one. Statistically, economies of scale plus the "approaching monopoly" or oligopoly creates a medium where operational efficiencies are maximized.

Having said that and at the stake of shooting another tangent into another direction, I tend to fall into a mindset that suggests that mega corps, monopolies, companies "too big" are in the long run a bad thing. It goes against fundamental capitalistic ideology but let's be honest, this isn't a true capitalistic system we're working with.

Now let me pull out my little accent brush.

In a more perfect system, we would have multiple medium sized companies, none "too big to fail". Economies would be more localized rather than nationalized or globalized. Want to reduce energy costs. Eat what you kill, locally that is.

See what you did, you got me all over the fucking board now.

:wink:

Conley
03-05-2012, 08:58 PM
:laugh: Yeah, sorry about that. I do that...still, we're all having a good discussion in this thread.

Captain Obvious
03-05-2012, 09:07 PM
Yeah, and I'm doing a little devil advocating here also - don't think I have my dick hat on either.

I save that for the hacks.

I do think that ultimately privatization (in most cases, not all) is the better route to go. Given what you stated, I agree - there is too much cum swapping between the gubmint and Wall St. Companies are far too big also and we are trying to become more global which is necessary to an extent however there is, I think, some value to downsizing our economy from a National/global perspective to a regional perspective. Transportation costs money and people need jobs. People also need to be able to afford what they produce so we have to export, but why not try to keep local what's local - on a small scale mind you and export the heavy duty stuff?

A lot of start-ups, coops and shit like that are trying this but the too-bigs are a huge barrier. Plus they have Washington in their codpiece.

Stoney
03-06-2012, 09:02 AM
The GAO in a report Thursday said the U.S. Postal Service has not made excessive pension payments to the federal government pension plan.

http://www.pionline.com/article/20111013/DAILYREG/111019934

October 2011

Conley
03-06-2012, 09:08 AM
http://www.pionline.com/article/20111013/DAILYREG/111019934

October 2011

Thanks, it looks like that puts an end to that part of the argument.

Stoney
03-06-2012, 09:24 AM
Again, I've been hearing the complaints for years and rather or not the funding of the pensions is what should be done, its something relatively new that effects cash flow. So from that standpoint its a factor. But mail volume drops, drastic decreases in revenue, and an inability to adjust to those decreases are much bigger factors.

It just occurred to me that interest rates are also a factor. Most of the revenue from postal services used to come from interest on postal money orders. People would typically buy the money orders and they wouldn't be cashed for some time. I've cashed some that were nearly ten years old. And as I make this point it also occurs to me that with online banking, money orders may not be as popular as they once were.