The postal letter carriers needs your help. In a message to supporters last week the postal workers union, the National Association of Letter Carrriers, called for fighting the US Postal Service Board of Governor’s reckless attempt to privatize the Postal Service though an unprecedented expansion of Contract Delivery Service (CDS).
Pressure on Congress has caused a bi-partisan group of 188 members to formally co-sponsor H.R. 282, a measure that calls on the Postal Service to stop contracting out delivery. While H.R. 282 is a non-binding "Sense of the House" resolution, it is considered a first step toward a permanent legislative solution.
One solution was introduced in May by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) as the Mail Delivery Protection Act of 2007. The bill, S. 1457, forbids the Postal Service from entering into any contract "with any motor carrier or other person for the delivery of mail on any route with 1 or more families per mile."Twenty other Senators have joined Senator Harkin as co-sponsors.
Unionized letter carriers could lose jobs, benefits, customers to this privatization drive. Postal customers will lose quality, on-time service afforded by well-trained union letter carriers. Want that package to get their on time and intact? It better be delivered by a union letter carrier.
Write to your Senators today to urge their support for S. 1457, the Mail Delivery Protect Act of 2007.
The opinions, views, thoughts, and ramblings of editors of PoliticalAffairs.net – and other stuff worth reading or viewing.
6 comments:
The post office is a model of inefficiency. I welcome competition and increased accountability as a way to improve service and lower costs.
Even if we accepted "anonymous's" assertion that the USPS is a "model of inefficiency" which is more myth than anything else, privatization is the absolute last way to increase efficiency.
In my view, efficiency isn't the issue. The issue is are working people going to paid decently and treated decently? they won't if privatization continues.
The privatization of the usps is desirable. The question of whether workers are treated and paid decently is moot. In a private enterprise workers who deserve more are paid more. No one benefits when a worker is guaranteed a salary either through a union or through a non-competitive market.
If "privatization" means the USPS maintains its monopoly but simply lets politically connected companies provide the services that are currently done in-house then, no it won't improve efficiency. The only way to do that is to break the monopoly and introduce competition into the market.
As for postal workers, well sorting letters and delivering them is a low skill job and they can expect to be paid accordingly.
What Eli Small says is pure fantasy. Whoever heard of "free competition" that excludes "politically connected" companies. That's so naive.
Look at privately owned airlines. There are dozens of them, and they are all flops.
No thank you. The post office needs to stay public.
And to the person who said workers needs, pay and benefits, are moot. Make sure you cc that to your boss. And don't complain when she cuts your pay.
It's moot.
Blender McVee said...
Look at privately owned airlines. There are dozens of them, and they are all flops.
Unless you're from some country other than the US, you're the one that's naive.
"[Southwest Airline] began service June 18, 1971, with flights to Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. Southwest topped the monthly domestic originating passenger rankings for the first time in May 2003. Southwest is also the largest carrier based on scheduled domestic departures.. Yearend results for 2006 marked Southwest’s 34th consecutive year of profitability. Southwest became a major airline in 1989 when it exceeded the billion-dollar revenue mark. Southwest is the United States’ most successful low-fare, high frequency, point-to-point carrier."
That's 34 years of profitability despite the federal and local governments' failure to make necessary improvements to air travel infrastructure [air traffic control, airports, etc.] demanded by the public's increasing appetite for air travel. Of course the government has no trouble finding money for useless airline "security" infrastructure that inconveniences and degrades passengers.
So yea, I'm sure the public would be sooooooo much better off if the government still ran the airlines too.
Post a Comment