on Aug 18th, 2014 in Post Offices & Retail Network | 165 comments
 

It’s baaack.

Network consolidation will return in January 2015, a year after going on hiatus. The U.S. Postal Service announced recently that it would resume consolidations, closing up to 82 mail processing facilities. This second phase of the network consolidations should be done prior to the 2015 fall mailing season.

The Postal Service expects the changes to yield $750 million in annual savings and to affect about 15,000 employees. In 2012 and 2013, the Postal Service consolidated 141 mail processing facilities, resulting in cost savings of about $865 million.

Loyal readers of our blog will recall that the Postal Service put its network consolidation plans on hold in early 2014 while it reconsidered its proposed changes to service standards for First-Class Mail. (See our blog from earlier this year on the delay.) Phase two will affect the service standards for First-Class Mail and Periodicals as well, eliminating the overnight standard for most First-Class Mail. Periodicals service standards would range from 3 days to 9 days, versus the current 2 to 9 days.

The Postal Service says eliminating excess capacity through consolidation is one of the few options it has to cut costs. Consolidation will also allow the Postal Service to establish a “low-cost, technology-centric delivery platform necessary to serve the mailing and shipping industry for decades to come.”

Still, the planned consolidations are likely to rankle some. At least one postal union has already come out strongly against the plan, saying it will degrade service and lead to mail delays. It intends to vigorously fight the closures. On the other hand, industry has generally supported Postal Service efforts to reduce costs and improve efficiencies, as long as service isn’t irreparably harmed.

We welcome your thoughts. Should the Postal Service continue with consolidations given the decline in mail volume and the potential cost savings? Or should the Postal Service first explore ways to use the excess capacity to provide services that might yield additional revenue sources, such as warehousing or other logistics services? 

Should the Postal Service continue its consolidation plan?

165 Comments


Add new comment

I know that the post office is having difficulties due to legislative restrictions which prevent it from competing with Ups and others. I think the legislature has it backwards. They need to protect the postal service from its competition.The postal service does better than UPS in informing the customers that they have packages.

The first part of your statement is correct, but the second part is incorrect. The USPS is actually doing better than UPS and Fed Ex. I have been a letter carrier for more than 8 yrs. and UPS has been delivering UPS parcels, because UPS lacks the man power and network capabilities to service all its customers.
The third part of your statement is correct. Congress needs to proctect USPS!!!!

The problem isn't with competition between UPS and the USPS. The USPS offers the cheapest and faster service hands down with all shippable items when it comes to individual shipments. UPS might have a leg up with business shipping, as it can offer discounts for quantity shipped.

However, the real problem that consolidation addresses is the drop in letter volume, which has been the biggest part of what the USPS does - it has a monopoly on that. That part continues to declined big time, so the USPS MUST take steps to adapt. No one I know wants to see consolidation, especially Postal workers, as it affects their livelihood and creates uncertainty, but going throw life without facing immanent problems never ends well.

Consolidation does not address the drop in letter volume, and letter volume is just one part of USPS. With the invention of ordering by internet parcels have become a competitive part of USPS. As stated previously UPS and FedEx rely heavily on USPS to maintain their business. There is no monopoly just reassurance everybody is able to have some form of communication without being robbed, held hostage, denied or prosecuted by some large corporation looking to keep their board of directors and CEO's happy with the bottom line. However you are correct, USPS must take steps to adapt to an ever changing world. You do not down size, but instead build to meet the demands of the ever changing world. You look ahead at problems not down, look at American Airlines. Dumping money continuously into it's CEO's pocket did not resolve there woes, instead it speed things along. I would suggest first you understand what America was built on, then find out what America stands for, and then try business 101. Then and only then may you decipher the difference in propaganda and truth.

hopefully,people will get tired of seeing all these businesses getting hacked and go back to mailing their bills

That was a very ignorant statement. Mail volume for first class is down slightly but revenue is up. We are making more money on first class then we did the same time last year. Parcel revenue is up. Standard mail revenue is up. Transportation costs are down. The Postal Service is making a profit this year, don't let them say otherwise. Postal management wants a privatized Service because if it is a private corporation then they will make millions more in salary and benefits. It's all a shell game with creative accounting to make it look like the Postal Service is doing so poorly.

USPS EAS bosses who think they will be hired for their expertise by a privatized post office are beyond delusional. Such a company would already have most of their operating managers in place, or they would recruit them from the ranks of MBAs, marketing and logistics experts, NOT from G.E.D.Postal EAS slugs who have coasted for for decades on the backs of hard-working Union workers. They are in for a rude awakening.

it would be devistating on unemployment(one of largest employers in world), delay of mail would occur. How about addressing pre-funding requirements that NO other entity has to do(pay 75 yrs. in advance within a 10yr time frame) i am not an educated econimist but that just seems unjust. The sanctity of the mails needs to be left alone and not thrown to the "private" wolves. The United States Postal Service is the most trustworthy organization in the world. I only want ONE organization to have access to my mailbox, not several private anybodys at will. Keep mailing those letters. You never know when a total power outsge might happen. I know from experience that the USPS will deliver!

This is such a bad idea. Why ruin something that took so long to create. You will do nothing but RUIN service. STOP YHE CONSOLIDATIONS... As a matter if fact, reopen the closed facilities.

As long as the PMG wants to priveatise the postal service,consolidations is just the start of the end of a, Postal Service that serves the public for less than any other company. Our service will be like every other company slow and unreliable.

PMG can't decide for everything because he isn't control entire UPS BUT ONLY through Congressional can give the decision. PMG have no skilled in business management and will hurt UPS business.

Agreed. The consolidations that have already taken affect have hurt the post office already. It's very sad when a letter that was mailed from 5 minutes away takes four to five days to get there. This is a typical thing now.

dang right.i do mail searches every day on the dbcs.i find letters that are 4to 9 days after its been postmarked.the mail from the coast of nc is bypassing rocky mount to Raleigh and Greensboro..on heavy days it goes to tenn..9 hours away..saving money no.poor service yes

In lieu of all the cyber hacking of bank and credit card accounts, we're reverting back to paying our bills and shopping by mail.
Postal Service is your constitutional right to communications. Imagine someday we suffer a nationwide black out with no access to phones and computers or any other electronic device? HOW WOULD YOU COMMUNICATE THEN?
Smoke signals won't work. But the US Postal Service is established to deliver to every business, resident and to al grounds every day of business!
Please read this article and vote NO to shutting down more of your postal facilities and service. You don't miss postal good thing until its gone!

If there were an event causing the electrical grid to go down, or the internet to fail, most of the mail would not get through very soon. The USPS is totally dependent on computers to sort the mail and without computers it just won't get done.
We could still sort by hand, but it would be a very slow process, same with UPS or Fedex!
As far as the consolidation plan goes, I work as an electronic tech at the Tulsa P&DC. We are scheduled to move into the OKC P&DC in July.
I believe most of the fat has already been cut away and by continuing to consolidate, it will hurt USPS as an organization. I don't see them saving $750 million per year closing 82 plants if they only saved $850 million closing 141 plants, or whatever the numbers are. The management claims there will be no layoffs, just workforce reduction through attrition.
Well, they can give incentives to increase attrition with out closing plants and then they can hire the new workers at about half the price, according to the most recent pay charts I have seen.

I also believe that the US Postal Service must be protected from its competition. The presence of local US Postal Service facilities far and wide benefits our nation in so many ways that transcend postal services and mail delivery. It would be a great loss to local communities, and postal workers, to consolidate the US Postal Service out of the communities that it purports to serve.

Postal facilities and real property must remain under the direct control of the USPS and repurposed to serve local communities that provide additional revenue streams back to USPS.

About 1987 the US Postal Service proposed local kiosks be installed at all post offices that would give computerized support to its customers by informing them of available postal services and other related federal information that applies to those very same local communities. Now, some post offices have kiosk-esque automated and computerized machines for mailing packages and giving some mailing and shipping information and even postage prices.

Even more opportunity exists in these times to do more and go farther with that original USPS idea that offered new functionality and purpose to its facilities that gave a nod and direct support to the local folks who came to use them. Special attention was given to the concept of local consumers getting the information and services that they required at the time, and we should continue to move USPS forward along the same lines of thought.

Postal unions would appreciate the idea of retaining manpower in place so that workers remain employed and stable in their employment, but I was thinking more along the lines of the US Postal Service expanding the functionality of its facilities to offer fiber optic Internet to local communities across the country. You can call it a "national fiber reserve" along the lines of our National Petroleum Reserve, in which our nation becomes connected at broadband and beyond. Postal Fiber services would bring in a much-needed Internet access to all communities where the standard Internet providers are slow to expand because they are happy with the revenue they already have, thus disenfranchising local and rural communities from access.

America did this before with the electrification project under the US Department of Agriculture in the past century, and the US Postal Service can step in now and work with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to advance America's broadband into the future. There exists worldwide a relationship between postal services and telecommunications which are consolidated under one authority of many foreign governments. In America, we can do this as well.

The Postal Fiber initiative would be America's way of serving the most underserved with both postal services and Internet access in accordance with a national broadband plan to serve everyone equally. Such an initiative would spark competition and broaden Internet access as well as draw more revenue for the US Postal Service directly and keep our mail running from the same facilities.

I think this idea is workable and it can be done. In light of the current search underway for more ideas to use our postal services and bring in revenue, this one makes a lot of sense.

Bravo Raleigh,

I had come to the same conclusion years ago now. Article I, Section Eight, of our U.S. Constitution, known as the Postal Clause, specifically authorizes Congress the enumerated power "to establish post offices and post roads." Our modern day postal roads are the right of ways needed to physically transmit information and should be acquired and held in the public trust to run whatever modern information conduits the future brings. Wireless would seemingly obviate the need for a physical conduit, but wireless also relies on a physical backbone, and a physical network of conduit, e.g., fiber optics, is needed for redundancy at the very least, and as a main communication channel that is part of a modern and resilient communication capability.

In my hometown we have a public non-profit that runs our Power Utility and is now providing Fiber to the Home (FTTH). We have some of the cheapest electricity in the U.S. and my home is 100% wind powered. Our new fiber network will provide symmetrical (Up and Down) 1Gbps speeds for $49.99/mo for life (more or less if the costs change).

This is the model we should employ with the USPS. We could retrain U.S. Postal workers and provide a critical service that is not being met by the for-profit model in the U.S.

The very fact that the industry supports it makes consolidation bad their interest is in making profit for them and no one else. The industry is bent on making all government and semi government agencies private to make profit at the expense of the public. The plan should be looked over and readjusted to only completely unnecessary stations should be closed and workers moved to work that is nearby.

Cutting costs should ALWAYS be a concern for a business, but the main concern and SHOULD be is to increase REVENUE. Cutting costs does "not" increase revenue. When you run a business, there are costs. It is just fact of being in business. I think the post office does a very poor job in raising revenue. They need to hire more professional salesmen and marketing personnel to increase the revenue.

RIght on! When the USPS advertised Priority mail about two years ago, they saw a huge increase in that particular revenue. We need to advertise what we have. It is a good product and people need and want it. Part of being an effective and profitable business is increasing awareness of your product, not keeping it some type of secret.

Sometimes we just need to make sure our employees realize what a good job they have. They need to suck it up because there is someone else just waiting to get their jobs.

I totally agree. I work at the phila NDC. It is the same at my other two p&dc's. The majority try to do their jobs but you have light and limited duty in every operation holding us back. Of course they're are a few legitimate injured workers but 10 to 20 injuries in a few years? Cmon, we all know better. You have to find a way to weed out the stiffs. Walmart greeters might be a good idea after all...

I do agree that the Postal Service needs to find a way of protecting our employees and continue to serve the public, but we all know that changes need to be made to keep our revenue and stay in competition our competitors. Times are changing and if that means downsize, so be it. I would also like to speak on employees that have done their time and should be made to retire so that the kids can start making a life for themselves. They have so much mote stamina than someone whose sixty five and can not do as much. As for the light and limited duties, I they can not do nothing they need to go. I myself have worked eighteen year in San Francisco and I am also a permanent stationary employee. I was injured over 8 years ago and just 1 year ago, I had several more things wrong from really working. At this point, I can no longer do the same job, not because I'm lazy but because I was a hard worker and actually did MY job. Thanks USPS for making my life easier. Sometimes you have to let go and let other have a chance.

There is always somebody or illegal waiting to grab your job, that doesnt mean we stop having good jobs in our community. The rich want to just make more and more money than they ever could spend and destroying the fabric of this nation. The main reason I believe is the Republicans see we have lost alot of letter mail, but yet have picked dramaticaly in package deliveries do to internet shopping which will only pick up as time goes. Corporate greed is the soul of this country right now. We need to be changeing this thought process. We need to boost the middle class for them to be able to spend money to keep tax dollars coming to support this country.

I agree. I have an awsome job with great benefits. I want to keep it that way which will be hard to do if we cut our service facilities and service standards. Customers aren't going to pay for crap, especially when they don't have access to our product or can go somewhere that can do it better.

Do you still pay your bills online? Has your account and personal information been hacked? Well mine has after the big Target hack. And your information will be too one day!!! Don't pay your bills online, use the postal service instead its 100 times more secure than the internet. Think about it!!!

While the idea of more consolidation sounds enticing, it will save money. It has several deleterious affects. First, it send the wrong signal to the public. Further consolidation can only be successful if the performance standards are reduced. In a competitive environment, such as parcel service, performance is key to success. The better the performance the more successful an organization is in retaining and gaining market share.. A reduction in standards is counter productive and will limit USPS's ability to grow in the most important high profit niches in parcel, second and same day service. The second problem is that most of the P&DCs are overtaxed as it is. Performance is often lower than before the recession. A further increase in volume will so tax the production capabilities of many, that service performance will erode just from a lack of excess productive capacity.

I work at a facility that has gone through the AMP process, has had to deal with consolidations, and is now looking at closure on the near horizon. Back in 2011 at a public meeting concerning our AMP, it was pointed out to USPS San Francisco District Manager that our facility had been #1 in the Pacific Area for six months straight on USPS performance targets. Her response was that performance (ie customer service) doesn't matter. It's not one of the criteria they look at for either consolidation or closure. USPS management has gone to great lengths to take the "service" out of USPS.

The USPS business model is totally out of whack. Closing facilities will only facilitate the demise of the postal service. At each turn they are lowing the service standards, but prices are also increasing even if only for a couple of years in the case of the exigency increase. Any regular business, faced with an increase of parcels and a decline in first class mail, would grow the parcels, instead the USPS seems to want to downsize so they don't have the capacity, then I really believe they will turn to UPS and FEDEX to deliver the "city" or profitable packages while the USPS delivers to the rural errors. Clearly the problem is the requirement to pre-fund benefits. Alas we have a postmaster general who'd rather see the demise of the postal service instead of fighting for customers and employees. Going to six day delivery might save 1.5 billion in expenses over hear, but if the customer experience suffers, the USPS could also see a 1.5 billion dollar decline. I have yet to see any study which identifies what will be the loss to the USPS. Could it be because no one wants to say the costs will out weigh the benefits (if any)? The USPS needs to get its head out of the sand and start identifying ways to grow the business. Changing service standards which delays mail will aid in the demise and continue the downward spiral.

Business Model,when applied to a specific situation, USPS in this case, means, "How are they organized to make money, and/or to survive, financially". The postal market place has changed dramatically over the last 25 years. Those who believe that reverting to the structure and services of the early 20th century will ensure success are totally missing what is going on. The PMG is doing exactly what needs to be done. USPS has had a network designed to handle 200 + Billion pieces of mail. In 2006, they handled 213Billion. Since then, volume has dropped to about 160 Billion (almost a 25% drop). If anyone thinks that the volume will come back, they are fools. USPS is headed to a situation where the volume will be on the order of 110 to 120 billion pieces, and that will include the increase in parcels everyone seems to think will save the day. The parcel growth is great, but the revenue associated with the coming volume levels will not come close to sustaining the current network of retail and processing facilities nor the excess services. You just cannot get there when you do they math! USPS and its employees have done a great job of adjusting to a changing situation, but arguing that reverting back to the past will solve the problem, is nothing but ignorance or standard Union propaganda, that does nothing for the real welfare of employees.

We're not supposed to make money, we're supposed to provide a service to the American people.

That may be your preference, but it does not follow the governing statute. It is supposed to be a self-supporting organization, providing services consistent with demands of the market. Who would you have "pay" for the services you think USPS should provide?

M Coughlin you must be in management and if so, then you are a big part of the problem. Another big problem is how postal headquarters continue to increase the rot employees that are paid way to much. They are driving the usps into the ground. We need to be making the cuts at the top to get rid of the fat!

I find it "interesting" that you attack me as a member of management (I'm not), but you do not present any facts to support your argument that "overpaid postal management rot" is at the core of the postal problem. C'mon! Do the math. There are approximately 10,000 headquarters management employees. Cut their salaries by 50% and you save something like $500 million. Last time I looked, USPS lost $2 billion in its latest quarter. Get serious. Look at the market place. First Class mail has been dropping like a rock for almost a decade. That is at the heart of the USPS financial situation. It is measured in Billions of dollars per year. Oh yes, I can hear the "solution", more marketing and new products, etc. Think about this. If USPS came up with 100 ideas for new revenues, and each of them generated $50 million per year in revenue, they would result in $5 billion in revenue. How many new ideas have you generated? When you do the math, you cannot get there!
The real problem is the dramatically changing postal market and a Congress that is clueless when it comes to fixes. Those who believe that reverting to the Post Office Department of the 1960's, have a romanticized view of the 60's and a total lack of understanding of the country's willingness to subsidize public services that should be paid for by users.

the other problem I see already is the USPS delivering for their competitors their "last Mile" mail for the sake of acquiring some business, but That is where the competitors save the big bucks in not delivering to their most costly areas. Why help them? They exist for profit not public benefit like us. Hurt their business I say! Yes I agree the post office only sees how much they "save", but now how much it will cost to consolidate and decline in service. There is so much cost in consolidating by using so many maintenance man hours to move machinery from one place to another, man hours making room at the receiving station, transportation costs moving mail back and forth from smaller stations to the further away centers , etc. The worst part is the Post office converting temporary workers to regulars who are taking jobs that should go first to the nearby post office workers who are displaced by their closing facilities . Where does the stupidity end?

There is no reason the USPS can not consolidate to 4 Areas(north,south,east,west) and 1 district per state.

With technology there is no reason effective communication can not be accomplished using significantly fewer districts offices. The high number of district and area offices were created to accomidate meetings once traveled to by car. It was not cost effective to pay postmasters to drive hundreds of miles to attend annual meetings. As a result, closer district and area management offices were created. Teleconferences are now the norm. There is no longer any reason we need these additional areas or districts to communicate.

1 district per state is more then enough if the USPS were really honest about embracing the obvious savings technology presents. Offer a proper incentive once and for all to get these highly paid CSRS retirement based employees off the roles.

Then and only then should degrading mail standards be considered through consolidation of actual mail processing operations.

Donahoe has shown that with all the cuts in facilities and craft employees that he will not "right size" the bloated management numbers and in fact they are promoting more employees into EAS again!

"On the other hand, industry has generally supported Postal Service efforts to reduce costs and improve efficiencies, as long as service isn't irreparably harmed."
USPS management has admitted that the current consolidation will irreparably harm and permanently reduce service standards. So apparently both the unions and industry don't want the current consolidation to go forward.

It is very short sighted. At current growth rates in the package business the USPS is going to soon need more facility and processing space not less. As a greater and greater share of USPS labor is used in manual processing package operations in stations and branches the size of this cost will no longer be hidden from upper management and they will eventually realize that they need to automate packages to a finer depth of sort like they have letters and flats. Because package delivery is competitive, this finer depth of sort will need to be closer to the delivery points than the current network rationalization plan envisions or service will suffer too much and the USPS will lose its advantage in this market. The USPS needs to realize its "last mile" advantage is really a "last 150 mile" advantage if it plans on keeping it.

In order to do this service standards have to be changed, no one is talking about this. Yes area office and PO HQ need to be consolidated. THe number of HQ employees have increased over the past few years while the number of over all employees have decreased. There should only be four area offices have three of the east cost is not cost effective. The PO want more parcels, they will need facilities to process this mail. Time to look into the future and change where needed but be honest with public and employees and make good decisions about what will be needed in the future.

Consolidation does not fix the problem. What we need is for Congress to back off the ridiculous pension requirements they have placed on the USPS. It's no wonder the USPS is going bankrupt - almost ANY company would if they were saddled with this garbage.
Fix the problem, not the symptom!

No further consolidations. I agree that revenue is key. If the Postmaster General was truly concerned about the future of the Postal Service he should implement the suggestions made by the Inspector General to offer non-banking financial services at the post offices. The IOG's report stated that it would mean an additional $ 9billion of revenue per year for the USPS. This dwarfs the $750 million in "savings" that the new round of consolidations supposedly bring. Cutting service for $750 million in savings or adding service to increase revenue by $9 billion. Seems like a simple choice.
But the current PMG rejects increasing service and revenue in favor of cutting service for much less in savings.
Halt the consolidations and get a new Postmaster General seems to make the most sense.

What will it cost to undue the mess that the USPS made up with its current consolidations? How long will the consumers put up with the lack of transparency? Who will be held accountable for the added cost it takes to move the mail? It currently takes on average 1.5 days to move a piece of mail, and it also travels an additional 50 to 100 plus miles on average to have it processed. To move a single piece on mail was devalued by more then 50% (cost of moving the mail from one installation to another), and to make up the cost comparison, the USPS will need to increase their prices an additional 2.3% to accommodate this change. Would it have been easier to change how the mail is processed in the mail processing infrastructure, before moving to another processing center 70 to 130 miles away?

Actually, USPS cost studies (validated by the OIG) have shown that consolidations do yield savings, including transportation and workhours, as many routes and positions are eliminated

I agree in part, the job is eliminated by the loosing processing center, but you have to staff the gaining processing center with the same amount of people. (it would have been easier to change the process model; i.e. longer machine run model, rather then multiple run programs. (the current mail processing foot print doesn't show any significant mail processing changes, but could/would have generated a larger savings). The cost analysis takes a larger sum of the revenue from point of entry through the network to delivery point by shifting the transportation model to a longer distance between the mail processing infrastructure. (Note: up to as much as 20% increase) All indicators show in time/process/distribute cost increase by the sum of times 2 because of the logistical map between processing centers and the delivery network. I have yet to receive any data to date that showed any savings in transportation. If you have any data that supports the USPSOIG theory, please forward to me. ( Lastly, the influx of labor distribution codes (LDC), allows the USPS to hide work hours in other operations, rather then defining the process and antiquate to a true accounting practice for value of process the mail).

Perhaps there is a need to rightsize the number of PDCs, but something has to give somewhere. The fact remains that there is one factor that is not going to change and that is how fast the trucks can get the mail to each AO. If they do not adjust their 24-hour clock and allow the plants to make their final dispatch to the AOs earlier, then the mail will arrive at each local office later and later. If mail that used to come from Plant A 50 miles away now has to come from Plant B 150 miles away, simple mathematics tells you, based on an average speed of, say, 50 MPH, considering highway and urban street speeds, the final truck that got to an office at 8AM will now not get there until 10AM. And that's just the earlier times. Then under management's edict of every piece every day, the carriers will be leaving to deliver much later in the day and be finishing much later each day. Do we want our carriers out on the streets past midnight? And do you as a customer want someone coming to your door at midnight ringing your bell with a certified letter? Close them if you need to but accept the consequences if you don't adjust your timeframe.

Consolidations and Closures will only hinder our ability to provide efficent, affordable services. There are so many ways the USPS can expand and bring in profits, including postal banking, yet the PMG has become the hatchet man. Similar to a former PMG "Carvin Marvin" who left before he destroyed the USPS. We need a leader that knows how to expand our revenue, not spend all our cash on reconstructing gaining failities to try to handle more mail while paying overtime all year long to try to get the mail out and then failing to meet the service standards that are in place now. He's spending money to move employees from one place to another along with the cost of moving equipment from one place to another. Transportation costs have increased outrageously including the additional mileage for not only carriers but for additional truck routes to get mail to the gaining facilities. We have a mess on our hands right now from the other consolidations and closures that were done previously, we can't afford to add anymore to that mess.

Consolidations and Closures will only hurt the POST OFFICE. Why are we trying to make Fedex and UPS Number #1 ? We were here first and that's the way we should stay

Consolidation will hurt service, and when service worsens, the USPS will lose customers. Currently, in my opinion, the USPS has the best service of all of the providers. When I order items on the internet, I always want them to be delivered USPS because I know it will get to me the fastest, and with the tracking that USPS is doing, I always know exactly when it will arrive. Keep the USPS delivery standards high and do not consolidate. Thank you.

I totally agree. The smaller post offices is where all the service is. Cutting the hours is hurting the communities. I love the United postal Service. Something needs to
Be done about the hours being cut to 4 hours.

Why is it that we can no longer get on to vote at this point? The Postal Service is taking this stance to hear the voice of the people. The question is, will they hear the voice of the people? I believe they are doing whatever it takes to do whatever they want. It has been shown time and time again that most of what they are telling the public is not accurate. It is a shame that you have to scam the people to let go of people to serve the people. When are they just going to listen to the people? So I vote" No" to consolidate the Postal Service offices or stations of any kind. It was the prefunding that set the Postal Service in the wrong direction. The Postal Service would be in the black and running as a normal establishment if this would not have happened. Lets just hope the people will be heard.

Pages