So that's why the cost of stamps is going up again...

[Billyman]

Shit like this baffles me.

Benefits Of USPS Cycling Team Sponsorship Is In Question.

Is The USPS Sponsorship A Responsible Deal For Government Agency?


Full Story from Indianapolis Star

With the Tour de France underway, the INDIANAPOLIS STAR's John Fritze wrote the USPS spent an estimated $25M to sponsor the team featuring three-time defending Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong, "at a time when the agency has bled money, begged for annual bailouts and, this past week, raised the price of a first-class stamp."

Fritze added, "Worse, a number of groups complain, is that the [USPS] carries on its spending largely outside of the public's view and, in fact, has refused to confirm how much was spent to sponsor the Tour de France effort or whether the expense has translated into any new business."

DC-based Citizens Against Government Waste policy expert David Williams: "I think any organization that is hemorrhaging money should not spend it on frivolous activities. Ask people at Enron and WorldCom if they're going to sponsor anything right now."

USPS spokesperson Monica Hand said that the agency declined to comment "on its decision to sponsor the team, whether business had increased because of it or on exactly how much money is being spent ... because The Star had filed a related Freedom of Information Act request for USPS' budget documents." Fritze reported the deal covers about 70% of the team's cost "and is used to help pay salaries for 45 employees, including mechanics, doctors and riders."

The cost "apparently does not include money for direct advertisement, and few additional funds have been earmarked for that purpose, leaving some to wonder why the [USPS] would pay so much to sponsor a team but so little to tell anyone about it."

USPS began its sponsorship in '97 with a three-year contract worth $3M, and in '01, the agency signed a new, $25M deal through '04.

[MAC]

You guys aren't thinking.

The postal service is investing $25M in a new bicycle postal carrier.
First of all with the 20 or so holidays they get they have plenty of time to train.

BTW:
Raise your hand if your town got a new post office during the clinton administration....damn near every town in East Texas did.

[Torque]

I don't know if I know enough to get into this, but....

They stated shortly after the anthrax attacks that new equipment needed to be purchased to combat this new threat, and the price of stamps needed to go up a bit. I can see that from a basic ecomomics point of view. Higher cost of delivery due to uncontrollable outside influence.

This time around, it's due to lower volume. From a basic economics standpoint, if you are selling less of a service, it should cost less to deliver it if the business practices are adjusted to reflect the lower volume.

In the non governmental world, I don't think this would be approached in the same manner. I'd expect to see less postal workers, less facilities, and less equipment in use. Merge facilities and teams to better cover the service to be delivered.

Are postal workers jobs protected as many other government jobs are?

[Billyman]

Originally posted by Torque
Are postal workers jobs protected as many other government jobs are?

Nope, my mother worked for the postal service (hey, that's an oxymoron!) for 14 years. She didn't even have all the nifty benefits of a government employee although she was listed as one.

[MAC]

Several years back they seperated the postal service from the rest of gov't employment.
Now you can't get a job in the mail room and work your way up to behead of the health dept or sumthin....hence...low morale.
The anthrax bullshit is just bullshit. (IMHO)
The 1 thing that keeps the USPS in business and keeps true competetion out is junk (bulk) mail.
I am willing to bet that somewhere around $0.50 per letter UPS or fedex could become competetive if they wanted. Maybe not....but I'd love to see it anyway.
The postal service is an agency that has had its day.
I know several people who have worked for the postal service their whole lives. they make good wages and have good benefits (not excellent but good) and they are all unhappy with it for their entire careers.
BTW: Does anyone know how they get their funding?
I mean do they only live off the profit form stamps and packages or do they get fed dollars or is it both?
If its both...why doesn't the gov't ever talk about needing to expand our postal service?

[SimpleSimon]

Funding is in theory based upon postage sold. In fact, it is both, as the federal government owns the physical plant and pays most of the costs of construction and maintenance.

As for privatization - it will never happen, as then all those congresscritters and senatwhores would have to pay for all the junk mail they generate.

UPS offered to pay 4.8 billion for the USPS in 1982. Congress turned them down.