Privatize national mail delivery?

Privitization might work in big cities, but I don't think it would work so well out in the country areas. People out there most likely wouldn't get any mail at all if the service were privitized. Companies like Fed-Ex and UPS often contract with the Post Office to deliver packages "the final mile" to those areas. Without the Post Office, then package delivery might not even be available in small towns.
(And, yes, I am a letter carrier, in case anyone is wondering.)

Hey Kevin,

We met a couple of years ago at Rockford Baptist.

Wanted to say that I appreciate postal carriers. I do have a funny (or perhaps not) postal carrier story.

A question for you (and others)

For folk in rural areas, why wouldn't it work for them to have (for lack of a better term) "postal boxes" at a retailer?

My father-in-law's mail (in rural Phlox Wi) was delivered to a local store. He would go up there a couple of times a week and spin the dials and open up his box.

Now my story: Half a dozen times a year I'll receive a book in the mail. Our postal worker will stuff it inside our mailbox. It is next to impossible to dig it out. A similar package delivered by UPS is put inside the storm door.

Not so sure about that. My mailbox isn't free. If I want to send something, I have to pay postage. Anything I receive has already had postage paid on it. The same thing could work privately. The price might go up, which might hinder the poor person sending something. But it wouldn't necessarily place any restriction on the receiving end of things.

Furthermore, even the private mailbox places usually have unlimited access to the mailboxes. They just cordon off the counter areas when they are closed. Which, by the way, is exactly what the Post Office already does for most of its on-site mailboxes.

Kevin

While that might, and I emphasize might, be true in rural areas, I don't think it's necessarily true in urban settings. Privatized mail carriers could deliver to home mail boxes, or neighborhood box stands, just as easily as postal workers do today. As I said, they might charge more to do it, but it would not necessarily have to affect the person receiving mail, only those sending mail.

Free market breeds solutions. All those "what if's" would be addressed (no pun intended) within a month of closing the post office.

Mr. Sprung,

Thanks for your service, and I do appreciate the enormous complexity of the mail system. But it is precisely because of this that I advocate for the complete elimination of any federal involvement in the post office. The more complex the system, the more the free market is needed to find solutions. As you mentioned, no one person or even group of very smart persons, can figure out how to deliver mail profitably (especially when hampered by the foolish red tape that ALWAYS comes with federal involvement).

I submit that we are already greatly reducing the need for mail. E-mail, faxes, GoToMyPC, etc. can all fulfill the vast majority of what we used to do through the mail. I personally do not need the mail any more in my life. All my bills are paid online. If there is an important contract that requires wet signatures, I use UPS anyway. If you take away the artificial prop of USPS, all of these other free-market solutions will very quickly fill in the gaps.

Finally, there is a lot of unnecessary mail that I get simply because it is too cheap for advertisers to stuff my box. If shippers truly had to pay free-market prices to ship all of this bulk junk, they would re-think it and perhaps we would save a few trees and reduce the growth rate of our municipal landfill. If the federal government truly wants to live in the spirit of the Paper Reduction Act (ROTFL!!), they could accomplish a great deal by removing themselves from the postal business.

It could mean the government selling the business off piece-meal, with wide open competition.

It could mean selling the entire business, as a whole, with the purchaser heavily regulated as far as being required to continue to deliver in rural areas, and with restrictions on competition in urban areas. In other words, it could pretty much continue as is but without the government exercising legislative control on working practices, etc. The owner would be expected to continue the same general level of service but would be free to institute efficiencies, etc.

I doubt the first would work very well. There would end up being no service in any area where it would be hard to make it profitable. The second probably could work, depending on how it was structured.

Not that they were infallible, but they saw freedom of communication as vital to protecting liberty. They believed there needs to be postal service everywhere, and it shouldn't just be left entirely to the free market.

I already addressed your argument about the rancher, by the way. I said it depends on how it is structured. It doesn't necessarily have to be entirely uniform pricing. He can get his mail at the post office, or pay a monthly fee to have it delivered. Or you can charge bulk mailers extra for delivering to addresses more than X miles from a post office (that's going to be clear from the last four digits of the Zip code). Or something else.

The post office went in the red over and over again when supply and demand wasn't an issue. That isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is government inflexibility in hiring practices, resolving other inefficiencies, and in pricing.

Years ago we lived in a house in Oregon where we had a mail slot in our door. The mailman had to get out and walk from house to house, walking up to every door. Meanwhile, my parents lived in a new development where they had to walk up to the corner to get their mail from the community mailbox. A privatised post office under scenario two would put up a community mailbox on the street I used to live on, and save 15 minutes of their postman's time every single day, multiplied many times over in that neighbourhood. And if someone wanted delivery to their door instead, they could offer it for a monthly premium.

There are so many ways creative management could find savings even under my second scenario.

You are targeting the wrong thing here, anyway. It would be far better to go after the things government is doing that the Constitution doesn't authorise.

I believe my 2 posts are not being thoroughly read. It appears to me that the media splash about competition and our preconceived remedies are but fairy dust that will somehow magically make an improvement.

The first quoted sentence response: Check the records and you will find that the Post Office was in the black most of the 1990's and early 21st century. The deviation is two-fold: (1) Prior to 2004 [I think], and profits were sent to Congress as the USPS was a "break even" quasi-official government agency. (2) The inflexibility in hiring are laws that require certified interviewers [of which I was one] MUST, repeat, MUST give the job to a lesser qualified applicant if they were a veteran (disabled 1st and non-disabled 2nd). I had to say no to so many absolutely potentially great clerks/carriers because [even though they scored higher] I had to take the vet. Now, couple this [and I say with care and caution--not all vets were negative employees but they had preferential treatment per Congress] with the present day Public Sector Unions [of which the Postal Unions within the Federal Government are Mt. Everest compared to all the others and even the private unions) and Collective Bargaining Agreements that are so one-side that management does not have much of a choice or potential action to "encourage" the slackers unless a crime has been committed. Look at the Teachers' Unions across our land and see that the education system is failing because they refuse to allow merit and ability to be the proof of competency. No, seniority and tenure are all that matters---and once that is achieved, good luck trying to remove them. The same is true in all the Unions of the USPS.

Now, Fed-Ex pilots are unionize, UPS is unionize -- what if they want to strike? Who is going to stop them? The USPS CANNOT, repeat, CANNOT strike (Remember Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers?).

Now to the second paragraph of the above quote. As I have previously mentioned, we cannot make an established community accept curb-side delivery or NDCBU boxes (one stop on the corner delivery). Until a resident sells the place, only then can we enforce a curb side method. But when whole communities are involved, it is like pulling teeth!! Door slot deliveries are still alive and well in older communities. Even if the dog rips the mail to shreds, and the mail man is subject to losing a finger (and it happens), they EXPECT the privilege. Oh, and just so ya'll know, to close a post office anywhere use to take up-to 4 years (no matter how small or unprofitable). Congress actually had to approve it. So, be patient when you surmise that the USPS has not attempted to reduce costs in all areas. And lest I forget, the oldest Federal Law Enforcement Agency is the Postal Inspection Service. Who will take up the slack once they are removed? Local police, sheriffs, state troopers? No, somebody will have to make a NEW bureaucracy (private or public).

Last, the issue of privatization revolves around only one type of mail -- letters. The Constitution and early laws made it a felony to open a piece of first-class mail. And it is still true today. Fed-Ex is allowed to deliver overnight and parcels. UPS came into existence in 1906 (?) because the then Post Office Department (a Cabinet position) allowed then to handle parcel post. And just an aside, the Pony Express was a private entity (which lasted 2 years). Back then, rural delivery was identified as RFD [rural FREE delivery]. And regardless of the lobbyists for the the others, Congress would not relinquish the special franking privileges they enjoy and having total access to every address (i.e., potential voters). Until and unless the USPS can be free from the union strangle hold on pay (tiers are a no-no), paying in advance for future retirees (when no there agency is required), then get used to it. The nightmare that would ensue if the government relinquished the private monopoly on first class mail would make most everyone wish they had thought this through. Be kind to your mail man/lady or window clerk--they catch a lot of undeserved scatological matter!!! Yes, the internet is the future, but some folks do not use it and others just like to get that "junk mail" and a card from the grand kids.

You have very good points--I tip my hat to you. However, when any of us read the bottom line of a company (red or black), there are so many extenuating circumstances that are buried in footnotes. For example, I stated that the USPS, when it came into its present model, had been the Post Office Department which was a Cabinet position in many administrations. When Congress change it to the USPS, a quasi-official federal agency, it also ceased to receive taxpayer support. Now, what continued was 2nd class mailers (newspapers, Time, Newsweek, dated periodicals, etc.) were still subsidized throughout the transition. In other words, they got serious discounts at the Postal Service's expense, per Congress. I joined the Service in 1979 and these were still in place. Please do not hold me to this time frame, but sometime in the mid-late 80's, these periodicals had to pay full fair. So when we see RED ink (profit loss), much can be laid at the feet of Congress for this and flawed mandates. Remember, the Postal Service until 2004 (?) was a "break-even" operation. Sometimes you make it, sometimes you don't. Doesn't mean fraud, theft, ignorance, poor practices, and other issues weren't part of the RED. Moreover, we did not have a fleet of planes (they tried in the 80-90's with Indianapolis as its hub, much like Memphis for Fed-Ex and Louisville for UPS). But the cost was prohibitive. Again, mail went by land or commercial air (which the latter we have no control).

Also consider this, successful delivery standards are monitored by a private 3rd company for the USPS (not so with Fed-Ex or UPS). For example, a piece of first-class mail within 0-101 miles was a next day delivery; 102-301= 2nd day; and 302-out [in US only] was 3rd day. The goal was nearly 99% success rate [usually were in the 97-98.5% as I remember]. Now overnight [a premium service and a money maker for sure] was just that--overnight [except in areas that were 2nd day promised due to location or drop off time at the dispatching post office. If we had a noon delivery, and the carrier services the address at 12:01 = failure. Customer could receive full refund [excluding weather delays]. The measuring tool for Fed-Ex and UPS was far more generous and put us at a serious disadvantage (also considering that is 90 percent of their business--no letters, flats, periodicals, etc).

My main thrust in this whole debate is that removing the postal monopoly thinking that all will be better is a dream. It is such a complex and extensive system that no one company could even possibly reinvent it. Split the Postal Service into pieces sounds like a great idea, but again, that would end the USPS as a business and return it to a Federal Department = taxpayers support. Why? Because only the government will pick up the left overs (rural especially). Fed-Ex, UPS, and others want the urban centers and the efficient suburbs of large metropolitan areas. If each independent can set the price, you will pay European prices (Canada and England already have used this model and they are paying for their mail!!!).

One of the previous posts noted how the internet is really taking over. You betcha!! I use it exclusively myself. So what is the problem? Why fuss about the Post Office? Why? Because the other players want the action--lobby Congress relentlessly. Their is serious money to be made; however, [though I am not a gambler] you can take it to the bank that Congress will NEVER give up the USPS for a number of reasons: (1) They have free access to every voter in their district/state; (2) The unions (4 of them) will never stop pressuring these representatives and senators to leave the Post Office alone. I remind you, these unions are the largest in the country and are part of the AFL-CIO also; (3) Consider Hallmark Cards and such like -- do you think they will take this without a fight? And (4) Mail volume is dropping at such a rate that it will be inevitable that either the USPS will collapse within or a major overhaul (unions be damned and contracts be abolished) that a new, smaller, more efficient system will be in place. But under NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL CONGRESS RELINQUISH ITS VITAL RESOURCE!!! Ron Paul would have a better chance of being President than the Post Office ending.