Postal Service announces unilateral plan to end Saturday mail delivery

Tags: , , , ,

Submitted: Wed, 02/06/2013 - 7:03pm
Updated: Thu, 02/07/2013 - 3:18am

WASHINGTON (AP) — The US Postal Service isn’t waiting any longer for permission from Congress to quit delivering mail on Saturdays. It says it’s going ahead with plans to start five-day-a-week delivery in August.

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe says the agency’s financial condition is urgent, and the change will save about $2 billion a year.

Under the plan, letters would be delivered to homes and businesses only from Monday through Friday. Packages would continue to be delivered on Saturdays.

Mail would still be delivered to post office boxes on Saturdays, and post offices now open on Saturdays would remain open.

The Postal Service has been advocating a shift to five-day delivery for several years, but Congress hasn’t approved it.

Congress included a ban on five-day delivery in its appropriations bill. But because the federal government is now operating under a temporary spending measure, rather than an appropriations bill, Donahoe says the agency believes it can make the change itself.

He says the agency is asking Congress not to reimpose the ban when the spending measure expires on March 27.

(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


  • B M says:

    well the post office could go into bankruptcy and dissolvve all it’s commitments and return with a leaner, meaner schedule. that seems to be the way for the last 10 years or so, dissolve and raid all the pension plans and reorganize and re emerge, the public hasn’t had any outcry over that,why would they now?

  • Vog46 says:

    I agree with that although they did mention that parcel service was good (I assume profitable) for them.
    Businesses still rely on the USPS as they give better rates for some types of mail than FedEx or UPS.
    I suggest mail pick up only – but many company’s rely on the USPS to deliver bills and for payment thereof – this would wreak havoc on billing cycles.


  • Guest54321 says:

    Good post.

  • Guest CommonTater says:

    The beginning of the end was the fax…. The USPS didn’t evolve and still relied on the good “old fashioned” handwritten letter to a huge extent. The day of the hand written letter is gone and with online bill pay and draft…… well the heartbeat was getting weaker. Email struck a HUGE blow with the volume of letters taken away from the profit line and now with smartphones and texting the USPS has basically become a dinosaur. With the exception of possibly the cockroach you must evolve or die….

  • Vog46 says:

    Stems from unfunded pension liabilities that the congress mandated be brought up to date much quicker than was needed (but some monies did need to be put into it)
    A privatized postal service? I doubt it would look nowhere near what we have today. As email took over a private USPS service would’ve cut back delivery a LOT earlier and raised prices as well.
    From what I can see we only need delivery Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and postage stamps should be higher priced.
    Mail and mail systems are the last vestiges of a time gone by. Package delivery is still needed but letter type mail?
    Of course its not the people that would scream about this the most. Businesses rely on the mail service far more than the ordinary citizen does. People out in the rural areas of the country do but most city people do not need mail delivery.


  • worker says:

    As a Postal worker ,I know it receives nothing from your taxes. The income of the postal service is strictly profit from items & services .

  • taxpayer says:

    receives no taxpayer dollars, they are subject to oversight by Congress…you know…the group that has voted time and time again to spend our country into our current state of bankruptsy.

    If the USPS were privately owned and operated, they’d be a lot leaner and most likely profitable…and delivering on time. However, whether you’d still be able to mail a letter for .47 is unknown. The USPS is another example of union overkill and too many chiefs and not enough indians.

  • Guest7969 says:

    are incorrect, they DO receive some tax payer dollars. You are correct in that if they were private they would run much more efficiently. NO, not a SINGLE government agency runs efficiently…PERIOD! They run on the same premise our government runs the country…just TAX for more money if you need it! No need to be efficient when money is seemingly limitless.

  • Vog46 says:

    anyone know of any other company that’s existence is mandated by the U.S. Constitution?
    Oh by the way 7969 from Wiki:
    “The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters”

    Keep trying though

  • Guest7969 says:

    ANYONE know of ANY private company that couldn’t THRIVE…if they were exempt from paying ANY federal taxes…..EVER

  • Guestindisbelief says:

    This will not cut cost, just productivity. Employees will still be working Saturday’s “delivering packages”. Same labor cost, just less for them to do. Perhaps they will all be in the parking lot waxing their BMW’s,Mercedes Benz’s and Audi’s…

  • Guesttenheimer says:

    Try apathy, in-efficiency, wasteful, careless, spendthrift, overpaid, underworked and in their eyes…indispensable!

  • jj says:

    I can sum it up in one word.


  • Vog46 says:

    I think thats wrong.
    “The agency’s biggest problem — and the majority of the red ink in 2012 — was not due to reduced mail flow but rather to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year.

    The health payments are a requirement imposed by Congress in 2006 that the post office set aside $55 billion in an account to cover future medical costs for retirees. The idea was to put $5.5 billion a year into the account for 10 years. That’s $5.5 billion the post office doesn’t have.

    No other government agency is required to make such a payment for future medical benefits.”

    This is the immediate problem and one that was brought on by Congress. it’s an unusually tough mandate for them.
    From a business perspective they’ve done whats expected of them:
    “Since 2006, it has cut annual costs by about $15 billion, reduced the size of its career workforce by 193,000 or by 28 percent, and has consolidated more than 200 mail processing locations, officials say.”

    Thats a good job IMHO.
    The mail system though is antiquated and has outlived its usefulness. The problem is – it’s mandated by the Constitution and many people in rural America depend on it – as do MOST businesses.
    I would propose the following: In major metro areas 3 day per week delivery with parcels service 6 days per week. In rural areas I wold probably continue with 5 day per week delivery.
    If that doesn’t cut costs enough I’d revert back to pick up service only – at either stores or postal centers with NO DELIVERY of private mail.
    I would also raise the price of a stamp to $1 each to discourage using the service or at least make it profitable for the USPS.
    If this were truly a private enterprise they would be looking at cutting cots (which USPS did, and is doing) and raising rates…….


  • Guest Reply says:

    5 days of junk mail instead of 6!

  • WilmMan says:

    What tax payer money do they receive? Do you know the percentage or dollar amount? You say they receive money but tell us how much. Others on here say they don’t receive any. So if you know something the rest of us don’t, provide that information

  • WilmMan says:

    Who needs the postal service? They increase their rates and decrease their services….doesn’t really bother me. I haven’t used the postal service in about a year anywawy

  • Brian says:

    The union is the basic reason for the USPS’s failure to thrive.

Leave a Reply