Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Postal Service to pay millions in performance bonuses
Government executive ^ | 12/4/01 | Matthew Weinstock

Posted on 12/05/2001 3:55:20 AM PST by chambley1

The Postal Service will pay out $124.5 million to executives, managers, supervisors and postmasters for meeting performance goals in fiscal 2001, postal officials announced Tuesday. Roughly 61 percent of the 85,000 Postal Career Executive Schedule managers--the equivalent of Senior Executive Service members--have met their goals for the year.

The Postal Service has been required to pay for performance bonuses since 1996, when senior managers negotiated a pay-for-performance package in lieu of annual cost-of-living increases and overtime pay. Postal union leaders have long criticized the program, claiming line employees, not managers, are responsible for gains in productivity. Postal Service officials point out that unions were offered a pay-for-performance package but chose not to participate.

"Without that agreement, we would have paid out $500 million more," Deputy Postmaster General John Nolan said, referring to the deal with senior managers.

Postal Service Chief Financial Officer Richard Strasser, appearing with other agency executives at a news briefing Tuesday, noted that productivity is at an all-time high. The agency saved $900 million from productivity gains in 2001. It added 1.6 million new delivery points and cut 23 million workhours, the equivalent of 11,500 employees.

But Strasser also delivered some bad news--the agency lost $1.68 billion in fiscal 2001, $1.2 billion more than anticipated.

Strasser blamed the additional losses on three overriding factors: the delay in implementing the most recent rate hike, the recession and the Sept. 11 attacks. Between Sept. 11 and the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, mail volume dropped by 800 million pieces, costing the agency between $250 million and $300 million in revenue. For the year, mail volume declined 0.2 percent, the first drop in more than a decade.

The trend line has continued into fiscal 2002. Thus far, mail volume is down 6.8 percent. Losses are already $400 million beyond estimates.

Union negotiations could also have a dramatic impact on the bottom line. The agency is in arbitration with three unions and in collective bargaining with a fourth. Most agency watchers expect benefits for all the unions to increase. At the same time, the agency is in negotiations with mailers to settle a rate case filed this fall. The board of governors gave management until Dec. 28 to reach a settlement or proceed with the normal rate making process.

Also on Tuesday, Postal Service Chief Executive Officer Pat Donahoe denied press accounts that the agency is going to stop irradiating mail. The Postal Service has committed to purchase at least eight machines to irradiate mail. Officials are currently assessing where and how to deploy the technology. Meanwhile, the $1.1 billion the Postal Service asked Congress to pay for the machines is tied up in political negotiations. Postal Service officials maintain that the government, not ratepayers, should bear the cost of those machines.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

1 posted on 12/05/2001 3:55:20 AM PST by chambley1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chambley1
First off, if they closing out the year in the red..maybe the ought to reconsider these bonuses.

Second of all:

Postal Service officials maintain that the government, not ratepayers, should bear the cost of those machines.

Someone tell these stupid Postal Service officials that the government gets their money to pay for those machines from the ratepayers/tax payers. How freepin stupid.

2 posted on 12/05/2001 3:58:41 AM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chambley1
Postal Service officials maintain that the government, not ratepayers, should bear the cost of those machines.

And just where do these Postal Service officials think that the government gets its money?

3 posted on 12/05/2001 4:00:00 AM PST by The_Expatriate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
Hey, that's no fair; you typed faster than I did. :-)
4 posted on 12/05/2001 4:00:55 AM PST by The_Expatriate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The_Expatriate
yea, but you did it in fewer words than i did LOL
5 posted on 12/05/2001 4:01:33 AM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chambley1
$1.68 Billion in losses.
$124.5 Million in bonuses.
And now they are going to ask for a 12% ($0.03) increase in the price of a 1st Class Stamp.

Something wrong with this picture.

6 posted on 12/05/2001 4:11:24 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chambley1
How an agency that CONSISTANTLY ends the year in the red can be handing out
bonuses to it's management for a job "well done" simply boggles the mind.

"Postal Service officials maintain that the government, not ratepayers, should bear the cost of those machines."

Obviously these "officials" are not the brightest bulbs on the block
if they don't understand where the government gets it's money from.

If they want to raise some revenue, perhaps they can start by raising the
rates on all of that junk mail that I keep finding crammed in my mailbox.
I'm not around to check it for a week or more at a time and, when I do,
I find 1 or 2 pieces of real mail and the rest is low-rate advertisements.
My mailman must use a 2x4 to get it all stuffed in the box.
7 posted on 12/05/2001 4:14:25 AM PST by freefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chambley1
pay out $124.5 million ... the 85,000 Postal Career Executive

124,500,000 / 85,000 = ~ $1400
Not too shabby, unless you actually deliver a product
--or on the end of a anthrax sorter
(--or your "performance goals" was to lose money).

8 posted on 12/05/2001 4:22:24 AM PST by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
Considering they are ending the year again in the RED, and keep raising the price of stamps, these educated fools DON'T deserve a bonus! Bonuses are for jobs WELL DONE, not for failure.
9 posted on 12/05/2001 4:41:11 AM PST by GailA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: chambley1
Rule #1 for performance bonuses is that the organization should at least break even. No break even or positive revenues, no bonus for anyone. If break even is attained, then those contributing most to the increased production or decreasing expenses should see a reward. Something is wrong with the USPS formula. If they were a private enterprise with competition they would have been out of business long ago.
11 posted on 12/05/2001 5:17:34 AM PST by shortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freefly
LOL...exactly!!!!!!!
12 posted on 12/05/2001 5:17:39 AM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chambley1
We just had a NEW post office built in a 26,000 pop. town. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the old one because they are STILL using it because some in our town wouldn't allow them to shut it down because of convenience. In other words...THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BUILT A NEW ONE BECAUSE IT WASN'T NEEDED!!!
13 posted on 12/05/2001 5:22:33 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chambley1
There is a simple solution. Sell half of Postal Service to UPS and the other half to Fedex and let them set their own rules.
14 posted on 12/05/2001 5:26:15 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chambley1
For now, the first customers will be deep-pocketed institutions such as the U.S. Postal Service and General Electric, the National Parks Service and Amazon.com

This is from Drudge's report on The Segway. Great to know all y'all have such deep pockets.

15 posted on 12/05/2001 5:30:00 AM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Good idea!! What about the Postal Service Ads and Sponsorship budget? How many ads ran last year and at what cost? How many sporting events did they sponsor? This is absurdity!
16 posted on 12/05/2001 7:21:48 AM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: broomhilda
**Ping**
17 posted on 12/05/2001 7:35:40 AM PST by TwoStep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chambley1
The Postal Service will pay out $124.5 million to executives, managers, supervisors and postmasters for meeting performance goals in fiscal 2001

and then:

But Strasser also delivered some bad news--the agency lost $1.68 billion in fiscal 2001, $1.2 billion more than anticipated.

Me thinks they need higher performance goals.

18 posted on 12/05/2001 9:09:56 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chambley1
... for meeting performance goals in fiscal 2001, ...

FOR MEETING PERFORMANCE GOALS???? They ran a HUGE deficit in fiscal 2001

19 posted on 12/05/2001 9:15:01 AM PST by bimbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riley1992
ping
20 posted on 12/05/2001 9:30:20 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson