Talk:United States Postal Service/Archive 2

Sorry not to be of more help, but...
There's a contradiction between the first section which says the USPS is the third-largest employer and the employment section which claims it's the second-largest. I don't know which it is, but someone should fix that.


 * Should be the third largest - behind The Dept of Defense and Walmart. I have changed that three times - I will NOT do it again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.50.168 (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The official USPS site seems to have made a mistake which is probably the source of the confusion. The site incorrectly says that it is the second largest when it is not. Somebody should FedEx them a letter about that. Mind my edits (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'Monopoly' section
While I removed the 'Monopoly' section prior to reading the discussion pages I firmly stand behind its erasure. The word monopoly is not an appropriate word to describe a quasi-government enterprise. While describing the USPS as a monopoly may be true in the strictest of terms, the context of its usage is clearly biased. Historically, the term has been used to describe private entities whose capital power has eliminated all useful and healthy competition. Furthermore, the word is charged with political and economic implications inappropriate for an objective article. By extension of the posters logic, the police, fire, military, the ‘Fed’, PBS, NPR, and others are violators of anti-trust laws as well. While the USPS does not receive funds from public monies, it’s also not – as far as I know – legislated to make a profit. Making the USPS the first ‘monopoly’ in the history of capitalist economics to ignore profits and losses altogether.
 * Your understanding of capitalist economics is somewhat incomplete. Please review anarcho-capitalism, in which the state is viewed as having a monopoly on social services. --Coolcaesar 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no sources that deny that the USPS is a monopoly and numerous sources that say it is. Of course it is. Any good or service that has no competition is by definition a monopoly. The government forbids competition in letter mail by law. Being a monopoly doesn't require that you're violating anti-trust laws. The USPS is what's called a legal monopoly. I'm going to put the section back in. Economizer 01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply because they don't deny being a monopoly does not mean that they are. Even if they were to openly state, "we're a monopoly," still doesn't make it so. After all, "sticking feathers in your butt does not make you a chicken." Tyler Derden. It's the context I disagree with, not the term. Regardless if the USPS position is protected by law, the context of that article is clearly biased in its scope. A word is more than just its definition. Its development and use requires context and cultural use which evolves into bias. Our culture regards a ‘monopoly’ as a violator of the law, and harmful to the people and a nation. Anti-trust laws were developed to destroy robber-baron holdings in the Gilded Age of America.   A true monopoly leaves zero choice in a provider of goods and services. This clearly does not include the USPS as it has to be the only monopoly in history not to dominate the market in which it operates. Furthermore using examples of why the USPS is a monopoly infers the need to justify a "position." Facts are not justified, they simply are. And for the record, I am fully aware of anarcho-capitalisim and its approach. I was a member of the IWW for a time and moderately versed in the archo-branches of economics and government. Your suggestion to review a political philosophy regarding a non-partisan entity is exactly why I believe the monopolist description does not belong here. Furthermore, since no clear definition of the word ‘monopoly’, or its context, can be agreed upon it’s probably wise not to present such a word and description as objective fact.

I am removing the articles ‘monopoly’ description. Anyone is free to consider this ‘vandalism’ and bring it to the attention of the proper administrators. I assume if this occurs, they will review this discussion and I will have a chance to make my argument for the change.


 * "A true monopoly leaves zero choice in a provider of goods and services. This clearly does not include the USPS..."  You're absolutely wrong that this does not include the USPS. If you try to compete in delivering letter mail, you go to jail. What you're doing is not "vandalism," it's just deletion of material by ignorance. If you want I can throw a whole boatload of sources that point out it is a monopoly. Then if you delete it, you're being disruptive. Economizer 02:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So the USPS is a monopoly because FEDEX can't put a letter in a box marked US Mail? Can they sell their own box to put on a pole? "Ignorance" is a word that you shouldn't be throwing around so loosely. You're also tossing about a lot of assumptions. Define "letter mail." And I made many more points than just that one sentence. What do you have to say about those? This isn't Algebra and I've built a solid case for the section’s removal. Spouting sources and statistics will never be a substitute for logic.


 * No, you don't understand. Read the section more carefully. The monopoly is not on all letter mail (letters), but on regular delivery. Competition is allowed on "extremely urgent letters" (overnight letters), as long as they don't charge less than the post office. That's where Fedex competes. Fedex is not allowed to compete if it's not an overnight delivery. And it's not just about the mailbox. Fedex can't even bring a non-overnight delivery of a letter to your door or they would be violating the law. And, Standard Mail (advertisements, etc), forget about it. No competition in that of any kind is allowed to Fedex or the others. Economizer 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand clearly what you're saying, which is: Fedex can't compete with the price of a stamp. But that still doesn't make it a true monopoly. You don't understand. A traditional monopoly is complete and unquestionable control over an entire industry, not just sections of it – a fact which made the Microsoft cases so controversial. Fedex adjusts to the regular requirement by offering stepped levels of service. In a true monopoly, FedEx wouldn't even exist. That's why the word isn't entirely accurate and thus, the section should be removed


 * No, a monopoly doesn't require that a business monopolize an entire industry. I disagree with you that Microsoft was a monopoly, but aside from that, there were lots of Microsoft products that no one would claim that they have a monopoly on. To say a business is a monopoly is to say it HAS a monopoly on some PARTICULAR good. The USPS indisuptable has a monopoly on the delivery of normal delivery letter mail. Need a source? "The US Post Office was granted a monopoly in 1775 and has operated under federal protection ever since...It has a legal monopoly in delivering regular, first-class letters and has exclusive right to use the space inside your mailbox." That is from a textbook called Economics, Thomson South-Western (2005), page 208. Economizer 03:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction on the third class mail (advertisements). The USPS now allows competition in delivering junk mail by newspaper publishers. They insert the flyers in between the pages and throw the newspapers on the driveway. I welcome your arguments, because your "disruptions" allowed me to catch that error, as well as to clarify the section. Economizer 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your appeal to authority with that weak citation will not earn you any rhetorical points with me. Yes, a monopoly does require that a business monopolize its industry - from the top-to-tail of a supply chain. Anything else is market share. Now, with respect to codification of law: something developed for the stability of the common good is not a monopoly. It’s called a public service. Saying the USPS is a monopoly because they won't let anyone else deliver letter-mail to mailboxes is like saying the United States Government is monopolizing democracy because they won't allow insurrectionists to split from the union. This is why I'm using the words 'context' and not its 'definition.' You keep coming at me with these logical fallacies, and I'll keep taking the posting down. I'm willing to work on a compromise however. Regardless if it appears that you're the only one wishing to protest its removal.

And by-the-by: your neo-con/rand rhetoric is trying. I know exactly the stance you’re coming from in your arguments. I’m sure you believe all things should be left to the judgment of the market. Saying ‘the market’ will work itself out is no different than saying ‘god will provide.’ I for one do not wish to leave my democracy in the hands of an invisible anything. Business is the first to preach the market and cry foul when the market works against them.


 * I haven't given you any "neo-con/rand" rhetoric. I don't know what you're talking about. It is factual that the USPS has two monopoilies. One is on non-urgent letter mail and the other is on mailbox use. If you have a problem with "appeal to authority" then you'll have to get over that. That's how Wikipedia works. We can't put our own ideas and opinions in articles. They have to come from sources. I challenge you to find just one source that says the USPS does not have these monopolies. Economizer 05:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to address a great many of my points throughout our discussion. In fact, you have addressed almost none. And don’t begin to school me on how this site works. I’m fully aware of the use – and misuse – of its pages.

There is a reason they have a monopoly over boxes, hence the: “So the USPS is a monopoly because FEDEX can't put a letter in a box marked US Mail? Can they sell their own box to put on a pole?" comment. Obviously you failed to grasp the connection or failed to read my post. You and I both know that sources of information, statistics etc., are easily skewed and biased.  Do you even know what I mean when I say, "Appeal to Authority?"  I can find citations and materials stating African-American's can't see well in the dark, and their brains are small.  I can find sources to justify a myriad of obviously biased and wrong information.  It takes more than a book to justify a point.  You must be a college graduate.  Take a glance at the statutes and duties section.  There you will find a general discussion - in a far more neutral format – on the so-called monopoly of the USPS.

And I 'inferred' - if you can grasp that concept - that you're a conservative and a staunch believer in privatization. And how did I figure that out? I’ll tell you: Because of the wording of the Monopoly section, and your firm belief in its truth. If I can easily deduce that the author of the section is of one political leaning or the other, it doesn’t belong on a site striving for objectivity in its information. Don’t you get that? If the section was reworded, then perhaps I’d be open to its inclusion. You're using the technical letter of the law to justify a political and economic ideology. Now I've extended my hand in good faith to reach a compromise on the wording. Am I to assume you’re not going to take


 * Well, I'm not a conservative, so you got that wrong. My ideology is irrelevant anyway. It is a fact that the government does not allow anyone to compete with the USPS in deliver non-urgent letter mail. It is a legal monopoly, protected from competition and exempt from antitrust laws. You will not find any educated person in the world who disputes that. Economizer 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you can say whatever you like regarding your political beliefs, can't you? A public service with a law enforcement arm is not a monopoly. Period. A service started and sanctioned by a government in a democracy is not a monopoly. And yes, your beliefs are relevant, because they come out in your writing. As they come out in the articles section. A problem that destroys the whole concept of an encyclopedia - a canon of fact. I use this site as a source of objective and unbiased information. I've found countless examples of these pages being used to subtly change public perceptions on information. It’s not the ‘monopoly’ problem I’m having a tough time about as much as the need to justify the position. The section seems to cram the information down one’s throat. It’s poorly written, and the section itself reads like a debate. It clearly doesn’t stand on its own merit as acceptable fact. Facts cannot be disputed. A point made clear by earlier discussions of this topic. I’ve displayed point after point proving my point and you’ve simply brushed them aside – ignored them. Another reason your attempt to prove your points are weak. I’ve addressed each one of your points. You keep talking about “sources” and saying, “everyone” will agree with me. This isn’t a science we’re talking about. It’s a conversation about social context and the word monopoly is not appropriate. It oozes with derision. How do you not see that? How can you be so increadibly blind in your idealogies?

Since you're all about the letter of the law: "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed..." Please leave the tag where it is.


 * If you don't accept an Economics text as a legitimate source for the term "postal monopoly", will you accept Justice Department testimony in a congressional hearing? In this hearing, the Deputy Attorney General in the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department refers to the USPS's "postal monopoly". This was in the Clinton-era Justice Dept, so I doubt she qualifies as a neo-con/randian right winger. --D. Monack | talk 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my $.02, I take issue with the whole monopoly section, but especially "Nobel Prize winning libertarian economist Milton Friedman". The "Nobel Prize winning" part seems excessive/unnecessary. It doesn't actually grant additional authority and if you want to know about Friedman's background, go read his wiki.

Anyways, I do suspect the whole section reflects libertarian bias that is found online in general. --Zot Quix 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just link here: http://www.usps.com/postallaw/universalpostalservice.htm and here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6407enr.txt.pdf (P12, para 3642, b, 2)

and let readers make up their own mind. The USPS *does* have a monopoly for certain services, but it is a highly regulated *legal* monopoly. There are many companies in a monopoly position which got there using at best dirty and morally questionable, and potentially illegal means (Cough Microsoft, Cough SBC/ATT), but that doesn't automatically mean that all monopolies are illegal or wrong. In any case, whether the USPS monopoly is good or bad, is a seperate debate - it does in fact have a monopoly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.197.119 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale replacement of USPS content
Someone has replaced most of the article with material apparently cut & pasted from the USPS web site (here). I don't think it is in the best interest of the article to eliminate all prior work with material from a single source. Opinions? -- Tcncv (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the justification for replacing most of the prior contributions with material largely extracted verbatim from a single source - "The history of the United States Postal Service"? If that site has relevant information not currently present, it can be included by merging it with the existing article without eliminating the current material.  Alternately, external references to the USPS site can be added to the external references section.  Also, the pages from which the new material has been copied are tagged Copyright© 1999-2008 USPS. All Rights Reserved.  If these issues are not resolved, I think the proper action is to roll back the changes.  -- Tcncv (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User (aka ) seems unwilling to discuss the issue.  I am reverting his changes on grounds of suspected copyright violation and other reasons discussed above.  -- Tcncv (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you would continuously change my edit of the United States Postal Service entry, but I assure you, no copyright violations are taking place. I am employed with the USPS, and sought permission from my superiors before typing a single letter of the article. Most of what I included came from the USPS website and is far more factual than what is currently on there.

I would also like to add that I am somewhat new to this whole Wikipedia thing. It is neither fair nor accurate to call me "unwilling" to discuss this with you. Hopefully, I will soon be more Wikisavvy. I currently seek adoption by someone willing to guide me through this a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First I'd like to say that I (and the general Wikipedia community) appreciate your intent to improve the article. This article (as with most articles) always has room for improvement, and we definitely would like to see any inaccuracies removed.  But I'm not sure that copying material from the USPS web site is the answer.  My original concern was that your intent was to replace the entire article, but I now see that you appear to be working through the article section by section.  As you do this, I'd be cautious not to remove significant existing material without replacing it with equivalent information or giving a good reason in either the edit comments or hereon the discussion page.  In fact, before making such broad changes, it's probably a good idea to state your intentions and reasons on the talk page before beginning.  That's more likely to attract positive constructive comments, especially after other editors start noticing your changes.
 * My other concern is copyright, one issue that Wikipedia takes very seriously. The USPS web site has a copyright statement and term-of-use that seem to indicate that "express written permission of the Postal Service" is needed to copy this material for other than personal use.  I'm not sure "permission from (your) superiors" qualifies, but that is a question I'm not qualified to answer.  Typically, US "government works" are exempt from copyright, but an exception exists for "Works of the U.S. Postal Service", which allows copyright to be applied.  See section 206.02(b) here.
 * So, I'd recommend reviewing the content to fix inaccuracies, be bold about fixing what needs to be fixed or improved, restructure the content if warranted, but be sure to document your sources, and be very careful about copying material. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the guidance. I'll do my best not to post anything anyone might find questionable in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.36.130 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Founded 1775?
The infobox says the USPS was founded before the US existed. Text in article states 1776. I'll just change it since it's such a simple thing to change back. Maybe someone could change the date in the body and also reference the info if 1775 is somehow correct? 67.168.238.184 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC) But the US Postal system was established on July 26 1775 -Mayorofrosharon (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither is correct, the USPS did not exist before 1971. —RVJ (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

United States Postal Service - Post Office
Why does United States Post Office redirect here and not to U.S. Post Office? (a page that needs work) Mr Taz (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisions
There have recently been a large number of revisions and additions to this article made by an anonymous IP editor. Some of them appears potentially useful but unreferenced, some of them may have real issues because they are strongly critical without being referenced. It seems like there are some people who watch this article - they should try to sort this out, or else revert. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am trying to add my references but you have deleted everything I typed before I could even site them. Why?  Who gave you the right,  I am a government employee.  Moreover, Im trying to add factual proven info here.  Please give me a chance to add my sources.


 * I blame XLinkBot! I'm sorry to see this happen to you, 24.3.50.168. --Specious (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

in fiction
the "in fiction" section is a strange selection of a few instances of the post office in popular culture. I don't really believe any are relevant, except for possibly the Miracle on 34th Street reference because it illustrates the legitimacy of the post office. I am removing the Men In Black reference "At the beginning of the 2002 science fiction film sequel Men In Black II, Tommy Lee Jones' character is working at a United States Post Office as he is no longer active as Agent K and had all his memory erased." now, but will leave the Seinfeld and Miracle on 34th Street for a bit to give people the time to explain why they are relevant. Ingridjames (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

going postal
it seems to me like since this is a government agency, the section on "going postal" is extremely unprofessional. I think since it is a popular slang phrase it should have its own page. Do guidelines for pages regarding phrases allow such a thing? Ingridjames (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a typo in facility types
I can't tell for sure, but it looks like a typo to me here:
 * A remote encoding center (REC), a facility at which clerks receive images of problem mail pieces (those with hard-to-read addresses, etc.) via secure Internet-type feeds and manually type the addresses they can decipher, using a special encoding protocol. The images are then sprayed with the correct addresses or are sorted for further handling according to the instructions given via encoding.

I think the last sentence should say: "The mail pieces are then sprayed with the correct addresses...."

I don't understand how images can be sprayed or why they would be sorted for further handling given the encoding. TacoChuck (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. -- Beland (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of Special Delivery?
I can't find any information on Special Delivery in this article, which was an important and impressive mail option when I was a child. I don't know anything about it except that I assume it doesn't exist any more. I found some online information about the history of Special Delivery stamps, but not of the service itself. It'd be nice if somebody who knows about Special Delivery could add something about its history. --Jim10701 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I added a link to our article on the subject. -- Beland (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To...the Postmaster General John Potter
tell it to managemant and don't call people lazy for doing work there not banker getting paid millions for ripping off people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.229.70 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a current USPS employee. I think somehow you tried to cut the cost in the wrong way. If you raise up the price of the stamp, that could end up with less customers. You need to cut cost by investigate how each route in each offices are divided. The USPS is paying this high salary to one who don't do any work. They get paid simply because they have more sinority. Some route that they have are very short or not even walking route and they finished by at most 4 hours and in the light day within 2 hours. They simply are shop steward(Union Rep), but only protect their own interests. They got paid for 8 hrs by doing 4 hours work. Here are your lost of 4 hrs paid to each of your sinority employee. Each route should be created in equal distance and amount of work time. Some route are more than 6 hrs walking, while these employees work so hard to gain their salary during those who are enjoying their 3 hrs lunch time. Their routes are finish in 2-3hrs, but they don't come back to office till 4:00pm and stay after to put in the marriage mail which they could get overtime. For example,they should finished their route by 2pm including lunch and 2 breaks and should be back to put in those mails, but they didn't. Each week, they take turn to do collection so they can get overtime. While other longer and heavier routes got no help. And yet, those who took this advantage are the one that complaint the most. Those PTF and TEs got paid less, but do much more work. They get to come in to do the Regular or Floter's work. The Floter get to bump the PTFs or TEs when the easy regular route is open eventhough floter had her/his own fix assign route. Example, if the route that open is an easy not walking route, the floter will automatic get that route eventhoght her assign route is supposed to be another long walking route. Also floter get to come in to rack and stay in the office doing nothing and got paid for 8 hours because they are garantee for that. But why pay them 8 hours and then pay another PTFs to come in another 6 hrs. This is why USPS lost money. I thought that the PTFs or TEs are to come fill in the opening route, when someone banked in or took leave. Think about it if you get the PTFs to come in and do that route and they could finished in 6 hrs and you get to pay an extra 6hrs. and let the floter walk the usual 8 hrs. This way USPS will save 2 hrs. pay, not to mention PTFs got pay less than Reg. Add these number up you could save million of dollars in expenses.

If you have time, check it out for yourself or creat some teams to do the investigation. I know that USPS will do route inspection soon, but make sure you get the real number, not a make up number due to your lazy employees.

Especially in the small office, New Jersey —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (User talk:Gary talk) 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)