U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
1–10 of 160 posts
Re: U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
#2Unrelated to this specific article: The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure. The thought that we could loose it over mail in ballot voting is a sick joke.
Re: U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
#3[flagged]
Re: U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
#4Unrelated to this specific article: The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure. The thought that we could loose it over mail in ballot voting is a sick joke.
Nobody in power has suggested this as a possibility. It’s fearmongering by the democratic media.
Re: U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
#5Unrelated to this specific article: The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure. The thought that we could loose it over mail in ballot voting is a sick joke.
Nobody in power has suggested this as a possibility. It’s fearmongering by the democratic media.
There was a bipartisan plan to include 30 billion in funding for the Post Office in the 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill.
But the administration said they wouldn't sign anything that included emergency funding for the USPS. That doesn't prove what the administration's motives are, but they certainly seem hostile towards the USPS.
Re: U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
#6Wonder what happens when soldiers can't send/receive mail from their families
Re: U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody in power has suggested this as a possibility. It’s fearmongering by the democratic media.
There was a bipartisan plan to include 30 billion in funding for the Post Office in the 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill. But the administration said they wouldn't sign anything that included emergency funding for the USPS. That doesn't prove what the administration's motives are, but they certainly seem hostile towards the USPS.
I don't get why it has to lose money at all in the first place. Sounds to me like they're offering a unique, highly in-demand service, in a market that is currently booming. Perhaps they should consider reworking their pricing structure? Just a thought.
Re: U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
#8Unrelated to this specific article: The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure. The thought that we could loose it over mail in ballot voting is a sick joke.
Nobody in power has suggested this as a possibility. It’s fearmongering by the democratic media.
Not a US resident, but as an outsider, it does seem like the government is not doing all it can to save the postal service, especially given the corporate bailouts they're looking to hand out.
Re: U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a bipartisan plan to include 30 billion in funding for the Post Office in the 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill. But the administration said they wouldn't sign anything that included emergency funding for the USPS. That doesn't prove what the administration's motives are, but they certainly seem hostile towards the USPS.
I don't get why it has to lose money at all in the first place. Sounds to me like they're offering a unique, highly in-demand service, in a market that is currently booming. Perhaps they should consider reworking their pricing structure? Just a thought.
I don't get why public infrastructure and services are supposed to make a profit. They are already funded by taxes, why are we supposed to pay them again?
Re: U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a bipartisan plan to include 30 billion in funding for the Post Office in the 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill. But the administration said they wouldn't sign anything that included emergency funding for the USPS. That doesn't prove what the administration's motives are, but they certainly seem hostile towards the USPS.
I don't get why it has to lose money at all in the first place. Sounds to me like they're offering a unique, highly in-demand service, in a market that is currently booming. Perhaps they should consider reworking their pricing structure? Just a thought.
The reason is because in 2006, a law was passed that required the USPS to fully fund 75 years worth of expected retirement compensation. That's not reasonable, and was designed to destroy the service so it could be privatized.