Postal service officials say one reason for their high costs is that they are legally required to provide universal service, making deliveries to 150 million addresses nationwide each week. They add that a major factor for the post office’s $20 billion in losses over the past four years is a 2006 law requiring the postal service to pay an average of $5.5 billion annually for 10 years to finance retiree health costs for the next 75 years.
So, if the Post office is losing $3.5 billion per year because they're paying $5.5 billion per year mandated by law, wouldn't it stand to reason that the USPS is actually showing a $2 billion profit, but is required to bury the money somewhere? USPS is not supposed to run a surplus. The problem isn't the USPS, and the Post Master General is a liar. That's how I see it. Or he stands to profit handsomely from a bail out?
I also read somewhere that the USPS has 300% more managers than UPS. If we HAVE to cut to keep the ability to overfund the health and pensions for the next 75 years out into the future, how about cutting the managers that don't even handle the mail, down to say, 100% more than UPS?
Oh, here’s the link to the NYT article:
I would think that little rule was the unions fix for making sure the pensions were fully funded.Again it comes back to public employees being treated better than the people who pay for the service.