Comments on: USPS, take 2 http://dysphemism.net/w/2010/03/08/usps-take-2/ the substitution of a disagreeable, offensive, or disparaging expression for an agreeable or inoffensive one Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:57:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: lj http://dysphemism.net/w/2010/03/08/usps-take-2/comment-page-1/#comment-28908 lj Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:22:23 +0000 http://dysphemism.net/w/?p=546#comment-28908 Yesterday I heard <a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/03/24/pm-us-post-office/" rel="nofollow">a story on the radio</a> that mentioned the fact that "bulk mailers" make up 70% of US mail volume. I think that fits perfectly with my experience. Yesterday I heard a story on the radio that mentioned the fact that “bulk mailers” make up 70% of US mail volume. I think that fits perfectly with my experience.

]]> By: Teague http://dysphemism.net/w/2010/03/08/usps-take-2/comment-page-1/#comment-28776 Teague Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:54:34 +0000 http://dysphemism.net/w/?p=546#comment-28776 Good points, though I think it's important to consider how difficult it is to change a large institution like the Postal Service -- e.g. to implement on-demand mail delivery, you have to change the job descriptions of most of its 600,000+ employees, lay off a substantial number of employees (once you figure out how many will be needed), revamp the sorting machines at every processing center, change how trucks carrying mail are scheduled and routed, etc., etc. You have to change almost every single aspect of how the organization functions, in an environment where each change requires the involvement of thousands of different people. This is a good reason to start thinking about and working on fundamental changes now, of course, but I guess I'm just saying that the fact that they haven't made these sorts of moves yet is understandable, and it's going to be really hard. And since Congress has authority over any major policy decision (while the Postal Service is responsible for balancing its budget), it's going to be even harder. I know I've seen a number of different statements from members of Congress taking credit for getting local post offices removed from the list of those to be closed. There are also union contracts constraining how quickly the Postal Service can change basic elements of how it operates... Good points, though I think it’s important to consider how difficult it is to change a large institution like the Postal Service — e.g. to implement on-demand mail delivery, you have to change the job descriptions of most of its 600,000+ employees, lay off a substantial number of employees (once you figure out how many will be needed), revamp the sorting machines at every processing center, change how trucks carrying mail are scheduled and routed, etc., etc. You have to change almost every single aspect of how the organization functions, in an environment where each change requires the involvement of thousands of different people. This is a good reason to start thinking about and working on fundamental changes now, of course, but I guess I’m just saying that the fact that they haven’t made these sorts of moves yet is understandable, and it’s going to be really hard.

And since Congress has authority over any major policy decision (while the Postal Service is responsible for balancing its budget), it’s going to be even harder. I know I’ve seen a number of different statements from members of Congress taking credit for getting local post offices removed from the list of those to be closed. There are also union contracts constraining how quickly the Postal Service can change basic elements of how it operates…

]]> By: David Seelig http://dysphemism.net/w/2010/03/08/usps-take-2/comment-page-1/#comment-28766 David Seelig Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:03:43 +0000 http://dysphemism.net/w/?p=546#comment-28766 Agreed. Perhaps it was opt-in scanning and/or delivery? I'm surprised they didn't mention anything about the breakdown of first class/bulk mail... Agreed. Perhaps it was opt-in scanning and/or delivery? I’m surprised they didn’t mention anything about the breakdown of first class/bulk mail…

]]> By: lj http://dysphemism.net/w/2010/03/08/usps-take-2/comment-page-1/#comment-28764 lj Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:57:21 +0000 http://dysphemism.net/w/?p=546#comment-28764 The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10wed1.html" rel="nofollow">NYT</a> is with you. A digital mail scanning service would raise some privacy concerns, in my opinion. The NYT is with you.

A digital mail scanning service would raise some privacy concerns, in my opinion.

]]> By: el http://dysphemism.net/w/2010/03/08/usps-take-2/comment-page-1/#comment-28757 el Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:18:44 +0000 http://dysphemism.net/w/?p=546#comment-28757 Totally agreed that the USPS needs to be more imaginative with their future business models. Indeed, starting a scanning system like the one you mentioned in Switzerland would make consumers very happy and eliminate a lot of problems. (I know there are expats using a similar service while they're abroad.) Agile routing and higher charges for people who realized they truly want to send hard copies seems like a vision. Really hope that pursue it. And I really hope they stop screwing up my mail forwarding - not very inspiring, USPS. Totally agreed that the USPS needs to be more imaginative with their future business models. Indeed, starting a scanning system like the one you mentioned in Switzerland would make consumers very happy and eliminate a lot of problems. (I know there are expats using a similar service while they’re abroad.) Agile routing and higher charges for people who realized they truly want to send hard copies seems like a vision. Really hope that pursue it. And I really hope they stop screwing up my mail forwarding – not very inspiring, USPS.

]]>