insurance and shipping with UPS

czarivey,
Trust me, I have no illusions of perfection with my former employer. I dealt with aggressive mis-management at many levels for years. Policies that say one thing and actions that say another. Vehicles that passed their estimated lifespan well over a decade ago still limping along. I could go on, really I could, for a very long time. I don't miss it at all. While you're absolutely correct about the lack of perfection, the firm really didn't take tax dollars. They couldn't. Federal mandate and all that. Yes, their own documents will portray perfection when made for rally the troops purposes as shown. For what it's worth, those are true statements on the document, they just neglect the downsides.

The Office of the Inspector General documents however are frequently scathing. Their internal reviews are feared because they tell it like it is. You get the good and the bad. The OIG has a good corps of analysts and comes up with not only succinct reviews but creative suggestions that are usually not implemented.  I didn't compare the Post Office to UPS in any regard. With that in mind, a Post Office without flaws is a Utopia that I've never seen. If only...

kqvkq951 posts07-30-2018 11:15pmBuilder3--
Unfortunately, you're completely wrong. That's hard to understand when you can just, as you suggest, Google it. The Post Office hasn't taken ANY taxpayer money since 1970. That's when the Postal Reorganization Act went through. Please take your own advice and Google it. Check the Federal Times if you like. Anyone can make a mistake but now you've doubled down on something that's simply not true. Please, do your homework.

kq, read it all, not sure where we differ. Pensions, etc, are an expense. Period. Tons of major companies have the same expenses, and pay them. The USPS lobbied the Feds for all they were worth to become a separate entity, and have fallen on their face, not surprisingly. And lest you think otherwise, I've got no ax to grind with the post office, generally. I do with the government, when they start pretending that they can manage to operate like the private sector, however. There's no fiscal responsibility, never has been.

I avoid the UPS problem by using FedEx. I learned the hard way and will never look back.

Builder3-
The issue with the USPS pensions is that they are required by Government mandate to pre-fund 75 years of projected retirements in ten years. No other companies have that requirement. Certainly not tons of them. None of them. That's obviously relevant to the balance sheet dilemma
The USPS does have issues that could and should be corrected internally. Believe me, I tried when I worked there. The larger the company the more resistant to change the company becomes. That's an over-generalization to be sure but it applies not only to the Post Office, a huge organization, but even more so to the government in general.
Yes, you're completely right about the government. Will Rogers covered the topic extensively. Many things have changed. Unfortunately, many have not.
Those in power tend to become little kings protecting their kingdoms and interest to the detriment of those that live under their jurisdiction.

There's nothing new about that. Roman Senators spring to mind as an example. The enlightened few that fall outside of the norm there are altogether too rare.
So yes, I think you're right that we agree more than not.
That pension deal though...

kq, I appreciate the response, and the info. I assume the pension funding requirement is a Federal thing? It should be more widespread, there are far too many examples of that same funding need just being ignored entirely in gov't. Kick the can down the road. I've no real inside information, but I assume that's what has driven the mail-carrier/subcontractor change? We used to have stupendous carriers, tremendously efficient and professional, both. Now, a complete 180. Enough about that, I guess. Take care