In times like these, many businesses are finding the need to cut back. Often the recession highlights problems in markets that were already weak but perhaps had not fully adjusted to that fact. One such case is the auto industry (see "Fueling Up for the 21st Century" ). Another is the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).
I'm one customer who thinks the "post office" has done a darned good job in many respects; it has modernized and innovated; it has made personnel and building cutbacks; it has developed a lot of online services; delivery generally is pretty quick for first-class and priority mail; and it has managed to hang on to a good share of the parcel market. All this, while still having to run those thousands of post office locations and to deal with the little old lady who needs to send a package but will have to have the clerk explain the rates and maybe even help her get it wrapped. That's the charm of the post office; it works well for individuals, and it's still usually the best service for home delivery. (Test: Can you have Fedex hold your mail when you're away? Does UPS deliver on Saturdays? If you live in Tinyville, Montana, does either of these services have an office in your town where you can mail something? No, no, and no.)
On the other hand, the USPS has always had trouble making ends meet. It operates under some serious constraints imposed by Congress, and in addition, it has been losing volume for years, thanks to newer technologies like e-mail, on-line banking, and web-based publishing of periodicals.
So it's not surprising that on January 28 the USPS again forecast operating deficits, and even requested contingency permission to cut deliveries to five days a week. The next day, however, Rep. José Serrano, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, said that he will block any effort to cut services because people "depend" on daily (six-day) delivery. I wonder if he's correct. It may be time to reconsider what is really essential in postal service.
There seem to be two sacred cows regarding mail delivery: universality (keep community post offices open everywhere) and frequency (six-day service). But do we need both? Of the two, I think universality is more important. Like Rep. Serrano, I would prefer six-day delivery, but I confess I was neither shocked nor outraged to hear a five-day week suggested. People are already out of the habit of depending on "snail mail." In an informal online survey by a local weekday newspaper, respondents said by a 2-to-1 margin that they wouldn't much care if mail went to a five-day delivery schedule.
No doubt the USPS could find a few more efficiencies in its current operations, but beyond that, they'll clearly need a bigger step to make a dent in the shortfall. So I would find five-day delivery acceptable, with caveats: its effects on USPS competitiveness should be carefully considered; the non-delivery days should not be consecutive; and counter service should remain available six days a week.
Comments