Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about United States Postal Service. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
How is being a government owned corporation different from being a private corporation?
I have added:
< The USPS also has the largest civilian fleet in the world, with an estimated 170,000 vehicles. >
An interesting tidbit...(unsigned comment)
< Although its consumer customer service centers are called post offices in regular speech, the USPS always calls them "stations." >
Hmm... not sure about "always" (see, e.g., the USPS website, but I'd buy "officially". I can't vouch that that's even the case, so I'll leave it to someone else to make the change... --Guido del Confuso 08:37, Sept. 28 2004 (Zulu)
How is mail routed? If I mail a letter, I know it first goes to my local post office. After that, Does it go to a regional distribution center? Is mail sent along "the most efficient route" or most direct line? Or is does it travel up a chain of hierarchy and then back down again to it recipient?
These might or might not be appropriate to mention in the article, such as failed "rocket mail" experiments, mail carried aboard space shuttle and stamp canceled on moon, mules that still transport mail into Grand Canyon, &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Some problems with the sentence, "It was created to fulfill the mandate in the United States Constitution empowering Congress 'To establish Post Offices and post Roads'."
i propose replacing the sentence with the following: "It was created in 1775 by decree of the Second Continental Congress, and exists today under the clause in the United States Constitution empowering Congress 'To establish Post Offices and post Roads'." SaltyPig 05:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate for the second paragraph on governance to be about which TLD they use, and where the links lead? This seems like relatively minor information, beloning later in the section. -- Tetraminoe 06:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed: "Due to the rash of shootings, Congress made firearms possession by USPS employees a criminal offense, especially while on duty or in a facility."
neither that version or the original version is acceptable. if something on this is to be put back in, a source should be provided so that an accurate statement may be made/verified. it's not accurate as it stands, because a USPS employee is a USPS employee even away from the job. the "especially" doesn't work for "criminal offense", though it was a step in the right direction. further, if somebody corrects/refines, please don't use "firearms" when "firearm" is more accurate both for law and grammar. SaltyPig 14:58, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
These lines under "Governance and Organization" appear to be pure speculation and don't add to the knowledgebase for this entry, it appears to me:
As a result, some say that those who mail letters to easy to reach destinations are effectively subsidizing those who are mailing letters to more difficult to reach destinations, and that exposure to market forces in a competitive environment might resolve this inefficiency. Also, competitive forces that would arise by allowing private carriers to utilize mailboxes might further reduce prices.
I think they should be removed.
This paragraph:
"The USPS is currently the only mail carrier that is allowed to deliver letters to private mailboxes in the United States; the same price is charged no matter the location. As a result, some say that those who mail letters to easy to reach destinations are effectively subsidizing those who are mailing letters to more difficult to reach destinations, and that exposure to market forces in a competitive environment might resolve this inefficiency. Also, competitive forces that would arise by allowing private carriers to utilize mailboxes might further reduce prices."
...Is conservative ideology wrapped up in sheep's clothes and has no place in this entry. The notion that it "might reduce prices" is entirely specualtive, when in fact, prices could very well go through the roof, as when the California energy market was deregulated and subsequently got raped by Enron, among others. Plus, the nation's power grid is in a shambles, which is eventually going to cost taxpayers billions. (On the other hand, following the breakup of Ma Bell, telephone-call prices have steadily declined. Another example is Thatcher's spinoff of British airways to excellent results. In short, it's speculative.) However, what is clear is that the phrase: "exposure to market forces in a competitive environment" is conservative shorthand for "privatization" and straight out of the Thatcherite handbook and I, for one, whole-heartedly disagree with it's impartiality. -Super90
I completely disagree with you on Ma Bell and prices steadily declining. You must be very young. I paid a phone bill of less than any phone bill I can pay today and along with that came a free phone and free service (including lines on your property), also information was free. There are so many fees today. Not to mention if you had a problem with your phone it was fixed asap. Also, getting help was easier and more readily available. Anyone tried to get Verizon out when you have a problem lately? Monopoly my foot. Just another ploy for rich lobbiest to get a piece of the pie by crying "monopoly" and then ripping off the public. It is going to eventually happen with the post office. All you out there who really think the price to mail a letter will go down if it is privatized are living in a dream world. No way, too many people need to make a profit and if you have shareholders, well they will ALWAYS come before the public. So, when the PO is privatized it will be a disaster for anyone who is not profiting from it. Better we get together and make the USPS we have a better, less stressful place to work and therefore more efficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.147.157 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The mail system is much more complicated than mailing packages. What about the safety of our mail? It is federally protected. Our mailbox is federally protected. Their success is not complete compared to the USPS because they do not take mail from our mailboxes. How is that to work. And by the way all you out there whose phone bills have dropped, what company are you using? Are you talking cell phones, that is a different matter. Because my phone bill is not less than it was. It is actually more. So, I gave it up and just use my cell. Which is only considered less expensive if I use a lot of long distance during the right hours. Please when I tell you the headache Americans will have if the post office is monopolized. My mail gets where I want it and I don't have to run around trying to find a place mail it, or spend a fortune. Seriously, consideringt the cost of mailing a letter even .41 cents is cheap, that is why if it is privatized you will pay more and you will be convinced that it is cheaper, just like those who say their phone bills are cheaper. I must live on another planet.
"Monopoly" is not only loaded language, it's completely inaccurate when regarding the Postal Service: The US Postal Service does not possess anything even vaguely resembling a monopoly on either letter or parcel delivery in the United States; if it did, private couriers both large (like UPS and Fed Ex) and small would not exist. The fact that the USPS has receptacles that it possesses the exclusive right to use does not make it a monopoly either; companies like UPS and FedEx have their own exclusive delivery/pickup boxes and it is illegal under laws which prohibit trespassing for other couriers to use their delivery/pickup boxes as well. Iceberg3k 00:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Actually Fedex and the USPS have a healthy working relationship.
Could anyone explain what the "simplified postmark" was; i.e. how was the postmark "simplified", and is it illegal to put unpostmarked mail into a mailbox not belonging to you? --Daniel C. Boyer
Recent attempts to remove "monopoly" from the article border on vandalism. both USPS and its critics openly agree that USPS is a monopoly. congress agrees. no private entity may legally compete with USPS for first-class mail delivery. that is an indisputable fact.
article edits and edit summaries are not to take the place of reasoned argument on talk pages. fallacious rhetoric such as "if it's a monopoly, how can it have competition" crumbles when one examines the competition referred to in the article. the first competition listed is email, a product which USPS does not offer or control (ironically for this subject, USPS years ago [early 80s] attempted and failed to grab a monopoly on email, realizing that it would eventually weaken its first-class cash flow). when USPS attempts to enter or broaden markets in which competition isn't illegal, it is beaten. however, in the primary market which is the life blood of USPS, it maintains total, monopolistic control by force and the threat of force.
USPS has a real, codified monopoly for first-class mail. it also uses government fiat (e.g., tax-free property) to infringe businesses in markets other than mail (e.g., phone cards, cell phone antenna site leasing); USPS is not only a monopoly, it is worse than a monopoly.
any attempt to remove the fact of the USPS monopoly from the article will be met with escalating wikipedia procedures, up to and including article lockout. if you want to argue that USPS is not a monopoly, please do it here on the talk page, provide actual evidence (not baseless claims), and argue with specificity and coherence against the rebuttals. thank you. SaltyPig 06:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
re the recent monopoly section addition to article: apparently it has been assumed that the descriptions i've been giving of the postal monopoly are worst case. they are not. it was also apparently assumed (because i only mentioned the most glaring example for brevity) in article edit summaries that the postal monopoly is isolated to "one service". it is not, and those making that assumption would not discuss facts on the article talk page. even the colloquial list of USPS/fed restrictions on private enterprise reads like a wet dream of the lowest soviet apparatchik, and cannot be accurately summarized as attempted. a real addition on the USPS monopoly will require thorough, original research, not simply assumption that the few things i've raised opposing inaccurate article edits compose the full matter. further, the new addition has egregious POV segments (e.g., that USPS has an "obligation to serve every US address at the same rates" (under the US constitution it cannot). that "it is doubtful whether any meaningful competition for ordinary letter delivery would develop in the absense (sic) of a monopoly").
on this subject of monopoly, i truly wonder what motivates some to characterize an entity which overtly prohibits (by force and the threat of force — using real guns) peaceful competition as anything other than a monopoly. if a private business used tactics even approaching those of USPS, it not only would be decried as a blatant, full monopoly (despite offering, for example, pencil erasers and other non-coercive side products/services), but most of the people opposed to calling USPS a monopoly would be ranting in the streets about how unfair, wrong, and deeply monopolistic such action is. (doubt it? simply examine the microsoft "antitrust" history.) why the difference? why is it okay for government to take up arms to thwart the free choice of the public (in direct violation of the US constitution), to the extent that the very policy is pretended away, and the obvious corollary description to describe its tactics ("monopoly") thwarted like a cross to a vampire? this phenomenon relates directly to the accuracy of this article. reminder: popular opinion does not necessarily equal NPOV. there is a double standard used to describe the brutish "business" tactics of USPS, and that double standard is thwarting this article's objective truth. simply because people have put up with it, usually out of ignorance (most people have no clue that it's illegal to compete directly against USPS), does not justify having two sets of definitions for wikipedia articles, depending on who does what, or what the stated intentions of a party are.
a direct request of those who claim that USPS is not a monopoly: if it is not, please give some examples of things which you do believe to be a monopoly. how are those examples different from USPS? or is the word "monopoly" actually inapplicable to anything? ("Don't ignore questions.") i believe that if such responses can withstand scrutiny, they should be added to the article. thank you. SaltyPig 14:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Referring to page 49 of the 2004 annual report, I see that subsidies were $36 million last FY. $3 billion, or $3034 million to be exact, is the taxpayer's total capical investment in the USPS - i.e., the book value of all real estate, equipment and other assets at the time it was transferred from the old Post Office Department to the new USPS corporation. Mkweise 23:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The page formerly said that although the cost of first class postage was $.37, the true cost must be higher, because of the taxpayer subsidies. The USPS says that their services are not taxpayer subsidized, but are paid for by sale of postage---mostly bulk mail postage and permits, I believe. The subsidies mentioned in the Wikipedia article are insignificant: $36 million in a budget of $69 billion. So the "point" that's being argued here is absurd, and the insinuation that the cost of postage is significantly reduced by taxpayer subsidies is false. I took it out. -- Dominus 02:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The Postal Service received security-based subsidies after the Anthrax attacks in 2001. These funds were used to install Bio-Detection Systems at the mail's point-of-entry at most of the P&DC's across the country.
Any source for the claim "Since the USPS is also directed by law to break even..."? They often have huge losses and occasional profits. I don't think that's illegal. RJII 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed references to the Postal Service as a corporation, because it isn't a corporation. For a legal summary of why, see the Supreme Court's opinion in USPS v. Flamingo Industries (syllabus, full PDF). Basically, it was kept within the government, but placed at arm's length from the President and Congress; it's still accountable to them, however, and it's fully controlled by the feds. - Sekicho 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
"letter volume continues to dwindle due to replacement by more efficient electronic means of communication and payment." Is this true? Any source for this? RJII 23:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
THIS IS VERY TRUE. The onlt thing keeping the USPS going will be 3rd class bulk mailings. Cost is up, revenue is down and clerks, letter carriers and mailhandlers are being replaced by machines and squeezed out of there bid positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.50.168 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems unclear (from both the USPS site and here) wether it is appropriate to hand a delivering postman first class mail to be mailed. It is mentioned on the official site seemingly only in relation to a paid special request for a pickup.
You can DEFINITELY give mail to a letter carrier- I am one, and it is done frequently, all over my route, every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.103.173 (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. And the program they push now is for Carrier Pick Up - NOT a paid service. I am a city carrier and we do this everyday - all day - for no extra charge.
I thought you could send up to Secret via Registered Mail.
It is: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522022m_0195/cp5sec4.pdf
Confidential can also be sent via Certified Mail.
I don't know exactly how to work this in. It states under "CPOs" that these are delivered by contractors working out of other offices. This may have been at one time, but not anymore. Most all of these offices have been closed because automation at the SCF's can sort the mail for these offices. The Post Office anymore uses the phrase to indicate a town which is an officially recognized name by the Postal Service, but does not have its own ZIP code or post office. This is usually because of size or an incorporated town without its own post office request it. For example, Battlefield, Missouri (ZIP 65619) does not have, nor has ever had, its own ZIP code. Its mail is delivered by Brookline, MO (ZIP 65619), which is not contracted out (it is an actual office run by the USPS). Battlefield, however, is considered a "CPO". They also issued new CPOs and even new ZIPs (St. Roberts, MO (65584) is delivered by Waynesville (65583)). There is no physical office in St. Roberts.Rt66lt 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Would an "extremely urgent" letter be considered first-class mail? RJII 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Insurance
* Provides package with insurance from loss or damage while in transit * Available for amounts up to $5,000 * Covers material losses only minus depreciation * DO NOT BUY INSURANCE. It is a scam and USPS will not reimburse you.
I think the bit about insurance being a scam should be taken out if there is going to be no proof or discuession provided.
Having said that, can anyone imagine, upon entering Wal-Mart being told by the greeter, "Hello and welcome to Wal-Mart. For only $1.50, you can purchase a policy that will protect you should the merchandise that you purchase today be damaged or destroyed by the actions or neligence of any of our associates between the time you purchase it and the time that you get it into your vehicle." Nowhere but the Post Office sells you insurance against its own bad acts. Sort of like the State Farm guy selling you a policy that covers your car if it is hit by him or any other State Farm agent. Rlquall 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
In response to Rlquall: It isn't the bad acts of the workers as much as it is a hedge against fraud. On one hand, they should replace items with insurance... on the other... if they reimbursed all damaged goods regardless of insurance, who's to stop someone from mailing his friend a laptop that fell of his stairs and pocket a cool $2000? It is insurance against fraud, plain and simple. And it works.
It's not a scam. Unlike private carriers, as a government entity (not a corporation, as noted earlier) the USPS can't be held liable in court for damaging or not delivering the mail; only postal insurance can reimburse you for that. (There was a recent Supreme Court case where the USPS was found liable when a carrier improperly placed a package at the door in a way that caused the resident to trip over it and fall; but the court ruled that was tort liability, not mishandling-of-mail liability which is prohibited by law.) --RBBrittain 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Should be mentioned under PC postage. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Are processing and distribution centers in operation on Sundays?
P&DC's are generally open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Most P&DC work shifts have employees working on both Saturday and Sunday--generally only senior employees have the traditional Sat/Sun days off.
I know for a fact most P&DCs are fully staffed every second of the year. Makes you wonder how they maintain the equipment or even sweep the floors in the hustle and bustle...
Over the last 5-6 years many have moved to having mail processing only 2 shifts a day [afternoon/evening and graveyard,] with the traditional day shift being reserved for maintenance and custodial. At the plant where I once worked, mail processing was only done from around 1 PM to 6:30 AM, with only maintenance and custodians working from 6-7 AM to around 2 PM. 4.246.84.99 08:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone put all the pictures at the bottom of the article into a gallery. While I agree that this is the correct treatment for post office pictures, I do not understand why the pictures of USPS trucks should not remain at the top of the page; they helped to fill the whitespace next to the huge table of contents. If no one disagrees, I'm changing this next week. --Coolcaesar 16:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved the pictures of the USPS trucks to the bottom of the page. I agree that these pictures fill the whitespace next to the huge table of contents. One can hide the table of contents. If you hide the table of contents, any picture that is in the whitespace next to the table of contents, get shifted to the bottom of where the table of contents was and the whole page gets an undesirable look. I understand, if you do not agree with me. --pbalson 00:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
These sections were removed with the following rationale:
I very much disagree, and I feel that the sections in question are comprised of facts and should not be discounted so easily. Obviously these sections could be improved and expanded upon, but they still represent a valid segment of the USPS's public perception.--Bantosh 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
TPG Post (a subsidiary of TNT, which is a private corporation) is the main provider of postal services in The Netherlands. They charge EUR 0.39 for domestic mail, EUR 0.65 for international mail within Europe, and EUR 0.69 for international priority mail within Europe. Strictly speaking, when "domestic" rates are compared, the prices are nearly the same. I don't think Dutch postage is particularly low. Of course the country is smaller, but in the current system, international mail is still international mail, which means rather troublesome and highly regulated co-operation between postal services is required. Maybe somebody can compare US postage to postage in other large, industrialized countries, such as Canada or Australia. The current statement is wrong, though.
In the "Governance and organization" section, there was a sub-section called "Subsidized services." It was empty, and has been empty since at least early June. Thus, I deleted it. --Wolf530 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
"Another example is the movie Men in Black II, where all of Tommy Lee Jones' co-workers at the post office turn out to be aliens."
If I can recall correctly, the aliens in the post office were peaceful and non-violent. Not to mention, the sentence sort of makes all the aliens sound violent just because they're aliens, yet the movie has many cases where the aliens are the complete opposite. I've removed the sentence for now. If there are any objections, just let me know and I can add it back. Same goes for a new version of the sentence (which would be preferred over what is there now as it is too general). Thanks. --pIrish 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of Hanson's recent edits are good, but here are the ones I disagree with:
--Coolcaesar 07:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you know what "original research" refers to in Wikipedia? See WP:OR. We're not allowed to put our own arguments or points in an article unless they can be sourced. If you do, then that's called "original research." You're putting this in the article: "Beyond simple revenue protection, the letterbox-law also helps to maintain federal enforcement authority over mail delivery through public accountability and oversight. A scheme of protection unavailable through private means." I'm not even sure what that says. Can you explain that here in other words? Economizer 06:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"...scheme of protection unavailable through private means...” = private entities aren't cops, therefore, the letter-box system provides a level of protection unavailable through private means.
It's because other carriers can't use boxes marked U.S. mail that gives federal officers the right to investigate crimes even when they don't occur across state lines = "...the letterbox-law also helps to maintain federal enforcement authority over mail delivery through public accountability (appointees) and oversight (law enforcement)” Therefore, it is a " a scheme of protection unavailable through private means." These are self-evident facts.
P.S. Please don't use my name without permission T.C. Craig 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm the one using it....or are you going to make me cite that too? T.C. Craig 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Your spitefulness is pathetic. It was a simple request....Do not use my name without permission, in any context. If this continues, I will request from multiple administrators your full contact information. In my state, it is illegal to use another's identity without their permission. If you wish to hide behind anonymous aliases, that's your decision. I am willing to use and sign my name when and how I wish. That is my right. You know nothing about me, and it is advisable not to taunt strangers over the internet. I will obtain a court-order if necessary. I will allow the last two illegal acts to stand as evidence of your abuse. T.C. Craig 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Privacy policy It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:
1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement 2. With permission of the affected user 3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his legal counsel, or his designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints. 4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues. 5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above.
I'd be happy to sign my own name - without the assistance of strangers - if someone would simply show me how
This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
As the above said, signage is a guidline, and I've read nothing in these pages that says other users should take it upon themselves to publish the contact name of any other user, administrator or not. Be careful that you don't place the entire project and its goals in jeaporady because you find me annoying. The crediblity of the entire organization is coming into question through these flagerant abuses. Yes, some people can be annoying, but it doesn't change the fact that sometimes annoying people are right. T.C. Craig 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please, the entire conversation can be followed by the editing pages, there's no need to publish the information. Are you suggesting some other person out there could mistake the conversation as their own? No, he did not impersonate, but it is my right to use my name when and how I wish. It was spiteful, and there are such things as malicious intent. It's very safe to use aliasis on the internet, but there can never be any true accountability. And it's a strange thing to build a factual encyclopedia by people who won't publish their real name. "Nothing Economizer has done...." really, do you know all tort laws for all fifty states? When I said illegal - I meant commiting an action that can bring legal action. My apologies, I stand corrected. T.C. Craig 22:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No no no, Matt you're absolutely right. It wasn't his first use of my name so much as when he took liberties of tagging my messages after I explicitly asked him not to. To sign my own name is one thing, for someone else to sign my name for me is quite another matter. Statements are considered published the moment I put them up anyway, so why the need for clarification?
After thinking about it however, my reaction to that situation was totally disproportionate to the act. You have to take the entire conversation that's been going on for the last four days to understand where my frustration is coming from.
I love this site, and I feel the concept is incredible. That's why when I read the original 'monopoly' entry; I was flabbergasted at the flagrant bias in the statements. Some of the materials cited come from a textbook used in god-knows-what university [citation #3], and the other two [citations #4, #5] from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (http://aei.org). AEI is a think tank based in Washington whose purpose since 1943 has been to "...defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism--limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate [emphasis added] (http://www.aei.org/about/filter.all/default.asp). Research conducted by this organization can hardly be considered unbiased and I wonder, given its stated purpose, how many research articles its accumulated and published defend policies contradictory to its stated purposes. Any organization whose stated purpose is to "improve" anything reeks of agendas and socio-economic bias.
I encounter loaded words such as “targeted,” (see history comments) on a daily basis in multiple articles. I take this site very, very seriously, and use it as a source of information for my own reports and personal research. Me, and many others I’m sure, demand it be clean from subtle changes in wording and sources of information that skew the intent and the spirit of the article. This is not simply an experiment or a game, we’re dealing with the worlds culmination of knowledge and those who have the authority have an ethical responsibility to make sure such information, sources that are cited, statements, sentences, and words used are not loaded or attempt to skew or state opinion one way or the other.
I also retract my legal statements. T.C. Craig 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I created a "Trivia" section and moved the material formerly in "Key facts" and "Did you know?" into the new section. I hate the section and would love to see it removed but I am new to this article and don't want to be too bold just yet. In general, I am not a fan of Trivia sections as they are inherently unencyclopedic. In this particular instance, I also suspect that much of this section is directly copied from somewhere else and may be a copyright violation. I also hate this section in this article as it's completely unreferenced. Any suggestions on how to better incorporate this information elsewhere? I intend to delete most of it soon unless we can find some supporting references. --ElKevbo 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE TRIVIA NOTES. I persoanlly went through and outlined and checked the trivia notes with IMDB.COM as a reference and THE ENTIRE SECTION IS GONE. Notes of TV shows, video games, films, directors and pop culture all listed but now gone.
People please excercise restraint. Lets be fair and rational to someone else's work - even if you don't agree with it or like it. This is a stream of information - not A SPIN ROOM.
I am a credible US postal service source. A quarter of the info on this page is WRONG. Makes no sense for people like myself to edit/ add or correct it if it's arbitrarily deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.50.168 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the "As lazy" subsection. The first sentence was unsupported by any references. The remainder of the section contained references to Seinfeld. I enjoy the show, too, but you need much stronger and numerous references to support the assertion that "[the USPS' monopoly] is a source of resentment by some who would rather see competition, believing that it would cause lower prices." --ElKevbo 02:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Potato\potahto T.C. Craig 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What you’re saying makes sense. However, I looked at three online dictionaries, and the word "demonopolization" was not found in any one. I think we should stick with words used and accepted in the mainstream.
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com)
Demonopolization - no definition found
Privatize 1.to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise: a campaign promise to privatize some of the public lands. -- this sounds exactly like what Freidman was saying 2.to make exclusive; delimit or appropriate: special-interest groups attempting to privatize social issues[emphasis added]--that's an interesting if not relevant definition.
Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com)
Demonopolization - no definition found
Privatize Main Entry: pri•vat•ize Pronunciation: 'prI-v&-"tIz Function: transitive verb
- pri•vat•i•za•tion /"prI-v&-t&-'zA-sh&n/ noun [emphasis added] - this too, sounds like the argument Freidman was making, as well as the citations used in the article.
YourDictionary.com (http://yourDictionary.com)
Demonopolization - word not found
Privatize pri•va•tize Listen: [ prv-tz ] tr.v. pri•va•tized, pri•va•tiz•ing, pri•va•tiz•es
To change (an industry or business, for example) from governmental or public ownership or control to private enterprise: "The strike ... was called to protest the ... government's plans to break up and privatize the deficit-ridden national railway system" (Christian Science Monitor).
I think we should stick with privitization. I'm also very anxious to read what your research has found regarding arguments for keeping the USPS public. You are making an objective article, I assume? T.C. Craig 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I took a read of your "for" article, and I have to tell you, it still is making the point for privatization. Do you have more than one source to cite? You seem to have done a lot of research in this area. I'm sure you've come across other sources besides the one who has the most to lose? And from what I know, when a public entity has control over a particular service of an industry, and then that protected status is removed, it is the same as privatization. You're playing semantics with public perception. Oh, and when you're making a for/against argument, it generally helps to include arguments that don't support the opposition. T.C. Craig 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, saucy. Relax son, I'm just asking for your sources in order to maintain objectivity. Hey, look what I found online.
Merriam-Webster Online economize One entry found for economize. Main Entry: econ·o·mize Pronunciation: -"mIz Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -mized; -miz·ing intransitive verb : to practice economy : be frugal[emphasis added] transitive verb : to use frugally : SAVE - econ·o·miz·er noun [emphasis added]
American Heritage Dictionary via Dictionary.com e·con·o·mize (-kn-mz) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "Economizer" [P] v. e·con·o·mized, e·con·o·miz·ing, e·con·o·miz·es v. intr. 1. To practice economy, as by avoiding waste or reducing expenditures[emphisis added]. 2. To make economical use of something: “The best that can be said for this method is that it economizes on thought” (Christopher Hitchens).
Your user name wouldn't have anything to do with your political\economic viewpoints, would they? Sounds awfully conservative. Remeber this: "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
T.C. Craig 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd post the following information from Wikipedia's Policy pages regarding articles:
"Undue weight Shortcut: WP:NPOV#Undue weight
"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view..." [emphasis added]T.C. Craig 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the sentence "...should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," speaks for itself. Let's get some input from the community. It also appears that you're rewriting the article that sparked this whole debate, but with different words and a few other sources. T.C. Craig 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I still contend that the USPS is not a monopoly. Frankly, you wore me out by a death of a thousand cuts (rhetoric) and I decided to let you have that particular phraseology. Reaching compromises requires mutual cooperation which is something you've obviously decided not to pursue. Indeed, I have a problem with the entire section, and thus far, you've still not complied with the NPOV and particularly the directive to cite information, "...in proportion to the prominence of each," among other things. "Everything is sourced and there's no original research,” I’d like to direct you back to the NPOV directive to maintain, "Reliable sources," and the article should, "fairly represent all viewpoints." T.C. Craig 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Your Arguments didn't have any basis," indeed that is untrue. You simply ignored those questions too inconvenient to answer; that does not mean my arguments failed to have basis. And since there is no tag to dispute a sections NPOV policy, I included the article tag T.C. Craig 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I would advise you, Golbez, to re-read the above conversations. Particularly the one where I mention, "Nope, I still contend that the USPS is not a monopoly. Frankly, you wore me out by a death of a thousand cuts (rhetoric) and I decided to let you have that particular phraseology. I've already let it go. I'd like to make it clear, however, that while I'm willing to concede the USPS is a monopoly for the sake of moving forward, the neutrality of this section is still in dispute. Surely there are benefits to having the USPS in such a situation? I'm only asking that the section be written per the requirements of the NPOV. T.C. Craig 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I think that's a good point, Matt. That's more the type of citation I'm looking for, except with less emphasis on the monopoly aspect; this information has already been mentioned, why repeat it? To point out that it is a monopoly without relevant context I think would be detrimental. Neutrality is the goal, and the current text and citations pull the discussion further right than I'm comfortable with. T.C. Craig 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, both are aggressive in their wording. We should cite some information that tells of the benefits of such a monopoly as well. So far, the examples cited discuss the economics only and the benefits for "competitors" in dissolution of the monopoly. However, there's no discussion on how the monopoly benefits the public. Mail is not just any other widget. There are certain ethics and responsibilities that go along with mail delivery. And there must be a benefit for only one institution to handle that mail delivery, no? Where is the citation for that information? Furthermore, consider the fact that one simple paragraph discussing the status of the USPS is sufficient to show its status as a monopoly. Why feel the need to “prove a point” by citing redundant examples and information? T.C. Craig 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"Neo-con" has become a loaded word, much like "propaganda" and "monopoly" to cite two other examples. Basically it has come to mean something like "Right wing thought that we and all good people really, really hate," and I would defy most people in the U.S currently using it, and most people on Wikipedia who are using it, to define it. A "neo-con" or a neo-conservative is in fact someone who is a liberal on domestic policies and "conservative" only on foreign policy. It is almost equivalent, if not totally equivalent, to "neo-liberal". The movement, if it can be catagorized as such, has come out of Commentary magazine as much as anywhere, and began during the Cold War when some liberals broke ranks with the mainstream and began to state how they saw the Soviet Union, not the U.S., as the major threat to liberalism in the world. Many of these people were and are Jewish (hence the joke, "Funny, you don't look like a neo-con"). Very few neo-cons are concerned deeply with who runs the Post Office; I doubt that there is any consensus "neo-con" postiton on the USPS. Firstly, I don't think that libertarian/minarchist positions on the Post Office should be characterized as neo-con, since that is probably wrong. Please cite neo-conservative sources if you wish to refute this. Secondly, the addition of well-documented positions on how partial or total privatization of the Post Office will purportedly benefit the mailing public will help the article greatly and need to be included in it IMO, but "everyone knows that the Post Office monopoly is bad and makes mailing letters cost too much" as a gratuitous assertion, with no references for this belief cited, adds nothing to the article and violates both NPOV and OR restrictions. Rlquall 17:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not appropriate at the first place it is in the article. Where the USPS is defined by law is in the opening sentence, 39 U.S.C. 201, and should not have to be cited again just one paragraph later. This is not a mere gratuitious assertion, but rather as much of a "fact" as statutory law can provide. I'm all for discernable factuality, but asking someone to cite the same thing repeatedly in one article is ridiculous and a standard that no reference work is held to. Rlquall 18:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Standard Mail (B) consists of the following mail subclasses: Parcel Post, Bound Printed Matter, Special Standard Mail, Library Mail, and Nonprofit. The latter two subclasses are not authorized for Government use.
Libraries are primarily government institutions, and as such, Library Mail would be a form of government mail. - MSTCrow 22:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As emphasized earlier, "Government" capitalized means the United States Government; most public libraries are run by local governments. While the Feds have their own mail rules, the USPS treats state and local governments essentially the same as private businesses. Besides, Library Mail is also used by schools, museums, and other nonprofits; it is similar to Media Mail for everyone else. --RBBrittain 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is a citation needed for the commonly held knowledge, in the United States, that the USPS is colloquially known as "the post office"? So what if the Aussies and Germans and Japanese don't know this. This is a United States institution and Americans fully know what the traditional reference to their postal service is. Come on, guys, let's get real, huh!Jlujan69 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the section looks neutral. While - for the sake of peace - many people have relented to conservative pressures that the USPS is a Statutory Monopoly (Which is like saying the United States Marines, Army, Air Force, and Navy have 'statutory monopolies' on national defense or local police forces have ‘statutory monopolies’ on civilian protection; but whatever) I disagree that the section is de facto neutral.
The most glaring example of POV violation is the subtle perception that the monopoly is bad – a truly objective section would cite the USPS has a legal benefit of no competition in particular areas – and then cite the USPS legal codes and nothing else.
Why nothing else? When you have the USPS codes themselves citing certain protections from competition what other proof is there? The “proof” so to speak is in the law. However, the entire section reads like an argument; as if a person is attempting to prove that the organization is what the title says it is. When people feel the need to prove a fact above and beyond what’s necessary it tells me there’s agenda-making afoot.
This is only one example among many. Feel free to peruse the discussion pages and follow the citations given to make up your own mind.
And now that I think about it....go to the USMC, Army, Navy sections - there you will find no attempt to call them statutory monopolies - even though they conform to the definition as it describes the USPS - doesn't that make anyone wonder?
Ultimately, the argument is about democratic socialism versus capitalism T.C. Craig 06:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"Fair" would also include "arguments for a mail monopoly" section. A "fair" expose of the legal status of the USPS wouldn't include examples of heroic entrepreneurs trodden upon by an unfair and authoritative government. I'm not going to change it. I’m tired of defending this section by myself. If this section is what passes for objective research on this site, I quit. T.C. Craig 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
On the top of the article is the heading, "HISTORY." But there is very little information in that section. I'm going to try to put some more information in that section, such as how the postal service was originally going to have Sunday service, and why it didn't (unfortunately) happen that way. (Incidentally, it had nothing to do with "Blue Laws.") Slater79 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I would have to say there are some irate people on here about the monopoly of the postal service.
Would you like to have three or four different trucks pull up to your mailbox each day and put something else in it? I wouldn't. That would be three or four more entire fleets of local letter carrier vehicles that drive around. ALSO, when you put a letter in your mailbox to get mailed, how would you designate which carrier you want to use, and how would you prevent a rogue competitor carrier from taking your letter and tossing it in the trash before the carrier you wanted to use arrives?
The best thing about USPS is that they deliver to every address; even if you live way out in the boonies, you can still get mail. If UPS or FedEx were privately in charge of delivering your mail, who's to say they won't shut down your delivery street address because it isn't profitable for them to deliver to it?? "We're sorry Mr. Schmuckatelly, but you will now have to come to our office if you want to mail or receive mail. Your street address is not profitable for us to deliver to." Or even worse, "We're sorry Mr. Schmuckatelly, but you are going to be charged $6.95 / month for delivery services to your street address. The charge that your mail senders pay does not adequately cover our costs to deliver to your address."
I have used FedEx, UPS, DHL, and USPS to ship packages, and I am happy with the service from all of them. I will say, USPS was the most economical.
Talk about a monopoly. I'm glad the USPS is in charge of all U.S. street addresses and mailboxes. If FedEx and UPS were the ones and USPS didn't exist, You might not be able to mail a letter using UPS from Ohio to California because that is FedEx's corporate territory. It would be a mess if there were not one authority with government stewardship. Also, in this era of corporate mergers and such, what would happen if UPS bought FedEx, and FedUPS-Ex then bought DHL? Would you call FedUPS-ExDHL a monopoly, or not because it still competes with USPS? not that this would happen, but never say never.
What happens when FedUPS-ExDHL collapses?? They turned into Enron and fell apart! Now What!? WAIT, we have a service that will always be there no matter what. USPS.
72.49.126.33 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) JAK
The telephone system is private in the U.S. If you live too far out in "the boonies" they don't provide you with phone service. Why should mail be any different? So what if you don't get mail if you're too far out in the wilderness? Don't move there if you don't like it.
I would like to dispute this part of your quote 72.49.126.33:
"The best thing about USPS is that they deliver to every address; even if you live way out in the boonies, you can still get mail. If UPS or FedEx were privately in charge of delivering your mail, who's to say they won't shut down your delivery street address because it isn't profitable for them to deliver to it?? "We're sorry Mr. Schmuckatelly, but you will now have to come to our office if you want to mail or receive mail. Your street address is not profitable for us to deliver to." Or even worse, "We're sorry Mr. Schmuckatelly, but you are going to be charged $6.95 / month for delivery services to your street address. The charge that your mail senders pay does not adequately cover our costs to deliver to your address." "
The USPS does not deliver to every address in the US. Many small town folk have to go to the Post Office and get it from a PO Box, and so do some people who live out in the middle of nowhere. They get a free PO box, but no home delivery. ---Ksax 19:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Does the Post Office employ fewer workers than it use to? I remember reading once a million people, not the 700,000 given here work there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Find it at the end of the offered services section.Drewson99 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a few problems with this section. It mentions what some think, but there's no source, and is speculative. The religious freedom part should not be contained just because some people's thoughts are inaccurate. It's more appropriate to list the facts. People who misunderstood things will no longer do so.
It does not mention that the Post Office always has employees working on Sunday, just not delivering mail. Therefore, the Post Office does not grant workers the general right to have Sunday mornings free, since assignments of workdays are not based on employees' wishes. Furthermore, the USPS does have Sunday delivery around Christmas on certain years. That could be misconstrued as favoring a particular religion, or could be viewed as a pragmatic decision due to the increased volume during that period. Since it also has occurred on Mothers' day, it's based on the large number of patrons who want delivery on a certain date.
A religious freedom argument might stand as a separate section, but it's no more relevant to the USPS than to any other organization. Furthermore, the general issue of religious freedom has to do with making reasonable accommodations for those whose religions prohibit work on certain days. Christianity has no religious prohibition against working on Sunday, on Christmas, or on any other day. Therefore, it would be a case of favoritism of a particular religion, not a failure to accommodate Christians for a particular religious requirement. That would still be a separation of Church and State issue, but only if the Post Office were closed on Sunday.
Hagrinas 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
eBay Corporation is partnered with Pitney Bowes. There is NO association with the USPS. Lostinlodos 03:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to place it under Media Mail, but I'm not certain that would be correct. Perhaps a stub article?
The US Mail will ship nearly anything as long as it is properly posted and not dangerous. WIRED magazine publishes a monthly photograph of some odd weird thing that has been sent through the US Mail. People send dolls, sponges, bowling balls, machinery, old shoes--literally anything.
I think this would be an interesting addition and lead to submission of photos. Cgarlington 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone apparently snuck some links to this site into the article in the past month or two when I was too busy (again) taking depositions to monitor my Wikipedia account. I just checked out those links and they appear to be spam links; the site is simply discussing the contributions of some individual construction consultant to various USPS construction projects. It's not a neutral source. If we allow these links, then any contractor who worked on a USPS construction project will try to add links to their portfolio Web site to the article, and that would violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:SPAM, etc. If no one gives me a good reason for those links in a couple of weeks, they're out of here! --Coolcaesar 06:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Postal Management is fully responsible for the increasing level of violence and discontent in the organization that they head. Shortsighted policies,concerned only with "making the numbers" according to preordained managerial schemes, have set the USPS on a self-destructive course obsessed with quick, illusive gains at the expense of service, and the long-term viability of the Postal Service. To wit:
1. 5 PM mail delivery is seen as a "goal"
2. Vacant routes each morning, with multiple (vacant) supervisors are the norm in most offices nationwide
3. Tracking of employees is seen as paramount; tracking of mail is secondary.
The USPS is portrayed in business magazines as "the worst managed company in the United States".
Ironically, managerial postal employees have been increasing in numbers. There are currently approximately 8 managerial employees for every craft employee in the USPS- in comparable organizations: UPS- 1 managerial employee for every 50 employees- Fedex- 1 managerial employee for every 150 employees. This is a facet of postal operations that is seldom mentioned, and is the premiere reason for the undue level of postal "stress" that is so endemic in the postal workplace: too many bosses, with too little to do, and so much incentive to harrass. (See "Letter Carriers" above...)
Nothing at the U.S. Postal Service website claims that the U.S.P.S. holds copyrights on postage stamp images. See U.S.P.S. licensing page. In fact, Title 17 of the U.S. Code forbids the U.S. Government from holding copyrights on its own behalf. The U.S.P.S. very cannily avoids using the word "copyright" in its discussion of licensing, and the web page cites no statutory authority for an intellectual property claim to stamp images. — Walloon 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In this article it states that USPS is the 3rd largest employer (after DoD and Wally World), and later the second (after Wally World). I'd imagine that it used to be 2nd, but then after Bushy McNeedlessWarStarter it's now 3rd. I dunno, somebody check and conform it to one standard? (Hopefully that standard is the one that is the most fact-like, but being Wikipedia, as long as they're the same, should be fine).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Triikan (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 August 2006.
The USPS general form (brochure) 19c can be requested and delivered from the USPS free of charge by calling your local post-office and requesting one. It is a list of information and contact numbers to deal with problems related to the use of the United States Postal Service; for services previously used. The guide references that eBay is "not an (sic) partnered, licensed, or affiliated provider..." [of postage].Lostinlodos 10:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Many people believe this to be, or to have been, the USPS slogan. That is not the case but I think it deserves mention in this article. Thoughts?
from: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/50/messages/267.html
Equinexus (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)equinexus
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.