Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
More Annotations
A complete backup of https://www.radio.com/
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://mes-english.com/coloring/halloween.php
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://www.4icu.org/tn/universities/
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5834198/
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://www.groupon.com/biz/moline-il/lovely-nails
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://www.qingse.one/view/1108.html
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
Favourite Annotations
A complete backup of https://famouswhy.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://soulshine.ca
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://creativeengland.co.uk
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://fotokonijnenberg.nl
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://qasralwatan.ae
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://missionchinesefood.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://nauathletics.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://voorpositiviteit.nl
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://canadianpharmacyntv.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://niw.gov.pl
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://bosch-home.pl
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://glossika.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
Text
MORE
The
Postal Service is proposing to cut back on air transportation for First Class mail and perhaps eventually to end it completely. How would that impact different parts of the country? How the postal reform bill may help the Postal Service slow down the mail May 21,2021 READ MORE
There
is much in the proposed legislation to recommend it, but there is no reason for Section 208 to be included. Congress should not be facilitating Postmaster General DeJoy’s efforts to slow down the mail. Mapping out the changes in USPS service standards May 6, 2021READ MORE
Maps
illustrating the proposed changes in delivery standards reveal just how widespread the impacts will be — and how not every place will experience them to the same degree What the USPS 10-year plan may have to say about future rate increases March 24, 2021 READ MOREThe
10-year plan did not reveal the size of the rate increase but it left a few clues. "Save the Post Office" launches new Service Performance Dashboard March 7, 2021 READ MOREThe
Dashboard provides easy access to the recent performance reports andlots of charts too.
Save the Post Office__ Navigation
* Home
* Reports
* Readings
* Recent Posts
* SP Dashboard
* N2021-1
* About
* __ Search
* Home
* Reports
* Readings
* Recent Posts
* SP Dashboard
* N2021-1
* About
* __ Search
IS ENDING AIR MAIL UNFAIR? TESTIMONY FOR THE PRC’S ADVISORY OPINION ON CHANGING SERVICE STANDARDSJune 3, 2021
Steve Hutkins
The Postal Service ended Airmail as a separate class of U.S. mail on May 1, 1977, almost sixty years after it had been established. By 1974 the Postal Service was using airplanes to transport nearly 30 percentof First
Class mail— over 15 billion pieces — and there wasn’t much difference between the two classes except that Airmail cost threecents more.
Today the Postal Service contracts with air carriers, primarily FedEx, to help deliver approximately 21 percentof First
Class mail — over 10 billion pieces. This mail is essentially air mail, but without the special stamp and extra fee. The Postal Service is now proposing to cut air transportation for the continental U.S. to about 12 percentof First
Class volumes, and perhaps eventually to end it altogether. The agency says shifting from air to surface modes of transport would improve net income by $175 million a year and avoid dependence on air carriers, which can sometimes be unpredictable in meeting USPS time frames. The Postal Service needs air transportation in order to meet the service standard of three days for nonlocal mail, which applies to the entire contiguous 48 states. Using trucks instead of planes means it will take one or two extra days to deliver the mail, so the Postal Service has proposed downgrading service standards. Instead of two or three days, the new standard will be two-to-five days. The Postal Service says that it will be able to meet these lower standards more consistently, so mail delivery, while slower, will be more “reliable” and “predictable.” The plan to reduce service standards is now being reviewed by the Postal Regulatory Commission for an Advisory Opinion. The Postal Service presented five witnesses to make its case. You can see these testimonies as well as the rest of the PRC’s docket hereand on our N2021-1
dashboard .
Yesterday four witnesses submitted rebuttal testimony, two of them on behalf of the APWU, plus long-time postal watchdog Douglas Carlson andme.
Carlson is the registrar and assistant vice chancellor for student information at the University of California, San Francisco; histestimony
focuses on how the university could be impacted by slower mail. Stephen DeMatteo is Executive Assistant to the President of the APWU;his testimony
reviews more than 77,000 comments filed on the service standard changes published in the Federal Register. Anita Morrison is Founding Principal of Partners for Economic Solutions; her testimony examines the impacts of the proposed changes in geographic terms, and it contains several maps similar to those in my testimony. Here is my testimony as it was submitted yesterday (sans the autobiographical sketch). The testimony also includes an Excel document that can be found on the PRC website and, for easy access, Google Drive.
PURPOSE OF THE TESTIMONY The purpose of my testimony is to provide the Commission with visual representations of what the proposed service standards would look like at the level of individual SCFs and at an aggregated national level. The Postal Service provides maps of service standards for SCFs on its PostalPro website, and these are very useful not only for mailers but also for the public. I have often referred journalists to these maps to help explain what service standards look like in actual practice. When I was reviewing the Postal Service’s technical description of the proposed service standards, with all the details about drive-times, distances and postal operations, it became apparent that maps would help visualize the proposal. As I began making maps of the standards for specific SCFs, I saw that there was a considerable degree of variation. For example, for SCFs located near the middle of the country the area that would fall under a 5-day service standard tended be much smaller than was the case for SCFs located along thecoasts.
This raised a question that had not occurred to me before: Would the service standards be unfair to some people just because of where they lived? With that question in mind, I made a few additional maps that I believe shed some light on the issue. Read More Facebook Twitter Pinterest EmailPrintFriendly Share
HOW THE POSTAL REFORM BILL MAY HELP THE POSTAL SERVICE SLOW DOWN THEMay 21, 2021
Steve Hutkins
In August 1970, Title 39, aka the Postal Reorganization Act, created the Postal Service. The first section, 39 U.S. Code § 101, is entitled
“Postal Policy.” It’s just over 400 words long, but it is probably the most frequently quoted passage in the history of postal legislation. It’s often cited in litigation, academic articles, and the dockets of the Postal Regulatory Commission. In some respects, Section 101 is like the Preamble to the Constitution. It sets forth the basic principles on which the Postal Service is established: (a) The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people. Section 101 also protects small rural post offices by including thisoft-cited passage:
(b) The Postal Service shall provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining. No small post office shall be closed solely for operating at a deficit, it being the specific intent of the Congress that effective postal services be insured to residents of both urban and rural communities. In 2008 Congress amended Section 101 on “Postal Policy” to remove part of a sentence in subpart (f) that required the Postal Service to “make a fair and equitable distribution of mail business to carriers providing similar modes of transportation services to the Postal Service.” The passage was deleted under Pub. L. 110–405, the Air
Carriage of International Mail Act, which modified how the Postal Service made air transportation contracts, apparently rendering theline unnecessary.
Aside from this minor change, there have been no other revisions of section 101. It reads today as it did in 1970. Yet for some reason, buried deep in the postal reform bill gaining traction in Congress right now — H.R. 3076,
“Postal Service Reform Act of 2021” — is a section that would amend 39 USC 101. (The text of the Senate version of postal reform,S.1720
,
isn’t available yet, but NALC says it includes a similar passage.) The proposed modifications in the wording of the text may seem small, but they have huge implications. Here’s how part (f) reads now:Read More
Facebook Twitter Pinterest EmailPrintFriendly Share
A TALK WITH THE FOUNDER OF THE “SAVE THE POST OFFICE” WEBSITEMay 14, 2021
The administrator and founder of the “Save the Post Office ” website, Steve Hutkins, joins Bob Levi on NAPS Chat to discuss the website’s purpose and impact. Bob and Steve also talk about the Postal Service’s on-time performance problems and the plan to downgrade service standards, now being reviewed by the PRC for an Advisory Opinion. Listen onGooglePodcast
,
Spotify , and
Apple Podcasts
.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest EmailPrintFriendly Share
MAPPING OUT THE CHANGES IN USPS SERVICE STANDARDSMay 6, 2021
By Steve Hutkins
The Postal Service has requested an Advisory Opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission concerning its plan to relax service standards on First Class mail and Periodicals. Much of the mail that is now expected to be delivered in 2 days would shift to a 3-day standard, and a lot of 3-day mail would change to a 4 or 5-day standard. The main rationale for these changes is to allow more mail to be transported by ground rather than air, which takes a day or two more, and to help the Postal Service achieve higher and more predictable on-time performance scores. (A dashboard with more details, documents and charts can be found here.)
This is not the first time the Postal Service has asked for an Advisory Opinion on relaxing service standards. In 1989 the Postal Service proposed reclassifying some destinations from overnight to 2-day service, and others from 2-day to 3-day. Its rationale was that market research indicated that customers preferred “consistency” to “speed.” A slower standard would, the Postal Service said, reduce its reliance on air transportation, which suffered “randomness of failures.” In its Advisory Opinion, the
Postal Rate Commission found that “the Postal Service’s market research, which formed the main justification for the proposal, failed to measure customer preferences accurately.” Plus, said the Commission, “the Service did not present estimates of the cost savings to itself or cost effects on its customers.” In December 2011, the Postal Service again proposed relaxing service standards, this time to make it possible to consolidate over 200 mail processing plants. The PRC’s Advisory Opinion was skeptical of the USPS cost savings estimate and also recommended “alternatives that would preserve service levels.” The Postal Service went ahead with the plan anyway. In July 2012 it implemented the first phase of the plan, and the “interim” service standards eliminated overnight delivery for about 20 percent of the mail and added a day to some 2-day mail. In January 2015, the “final” standards were implemented and overnight delivery was ended all single-piece mail. Together, the two phases added an extra day of delivery time to more than a third, maybe half, of First Class Mail. THE EROSION OF STANDARDS Given that First Class mail volumes have declined steadily since 2006, one might think that it would have gotten easier to deliver the mail in a timely way. In fact, though, the average time it takes to deliver the mail has increased just as steadily as volumes have fallen. The average delivery time for First Class mail in the early 1990s was about 1.6 days. As a result of the changes in standards in 2011 and 2015, it increased to 2.5 days. Under the latest proposal, the average delivery time would increase 18 percent, to nearly 3 days. These delivery time numbers, it may be noted, are slightly different from the data reported by USPS witness Thomas Thress for the Advisory Opinion. Charts in his testimony indicate that the current average is 2.5 days for single-piece mail and 2.4 days for presort. That’s about 2.43 days for First Class overall; an 18 percent increase would lead to an average of 2.87 days. The numbers in the chart above were derived from the following chart, which shows the percentage of mail volumes subject to the various standards. The sources for this chart are N89-1 Advisory Opinion(p. 1);
2014 Fact Sheet
;
9/21/11 Federal Register notice;
and USPS Delivering For America 10-year plan. First Class Mail Volumes by Service Standard, 1989-20215 Day4 Day3 Day2 DayOvernight198920052011201420152020Proposed0%20%40%60%80%100%YEAR
OVERNIGHT
2 DAY
3 DAY
4 DAY
5 DAY
1989
56%
29%
15%
2005
42.5%
26.5%
31%
2011
41.5%
26.6%
31.6%
2014
25.5%
22.9%
51.6%
2015
15%
23%
63%
2020
7%
36%
57%
Proposed
7%
28%
35%
21%
10%
Overnight
With each change in service standards, the goal has been to cut costs and increase the “reliability” and “predictability” of delivery times. But the savings estimates have been consistently disputed because it’s not clear how much lowering standards has driven away business and accelerated electronic diversion. Operational changes have also not generally succeeded in reducing costs, at least as much as projected. And the speed-versus-reliability issue is tricky because it all depends on how you ask mailers the question, and besides, they don’t all want the same thing. But what is clear is that the plan currently being reviewed by the Commission represents yet another stage in the continuing erosion of service standards and delivery times.MAKING MAPS
The Request
for an
Advisory Opinion, the USPS witness testimoniesand several
library references
explain the plan in considerable detail, but the materials don’t provide a very clear picture of what the changes will look like in terms of geography. What’s missing are some maps. Read More Facebook Twitter Pinterest EmailPrintFriendly Share
NEW DASHBOARD ON THE PRC ADVISORY OPINION ON THE CHANGE IN SERVICESTANDARDS
April 28, 2021
The Postal Service has requested an Advisory Opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission concerning its plan to relax service standards on First Class mail and Periodicals. We started a new website page that provides easy access to the PRC’s docket (N2021-1), as well as some charts, tables, and blog posts about the proposal. You can find the page here ; it’s also a tab, N2021-1, in the main menu above. Facebook Twitter Pinterest EmailPrintFriendly Share
SPRING 2021 CPWU NEWSLETTERApril 5, 2021
The Spring 2021 Newsletter from Communities and Postal Workers United (CPWU) has articles about Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s ten-year plan, ironically named “Delivering for America”; the “People’s Postal Agenda” discussed at the online conference put on by the Grand Alliance to Save the Public Postal Service; Charlotte postal workers protesting mistreatment and harassment; and Washington state’s postal workers pushing to be eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine, following a recent breakout of the virus at the Kent processing facility. Read the newsletter here. Facebook Twitter Pinterest EmailPrintFriendly Share
WHAT THE USPS 10-YEAR PLAN MAY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT FUTURE RATE INCREASESMarch 24, 2021
The mailers were probably disappointed that the Postal Service’s new 10-year plan released yesterday, “Delivering for America,”
did not reveal how big of a rate increase the Postal Service intends to make using the new authority it was granted by the Postal Regulatory Commission. While they wait in suspense, here’s a guess: 3.6 percent. We already know that the calculationsthe Postal Service
submitted to the PRC in February indicate the hike could be as large as 5.56 percent (on top of the CPI increase), but the new system allows some of the rate authority to be banked for future years, so the increase could be smaller. And that is just what the followinganalysis suggests.
This analysis is based on two tables and a couple of comments that appear in the 10-year plan. The tables show revenue and expenses under two scenarios, a base case using the status quo and an alternative that uses the revenue and cost savings under the Delivering for America plan. The tables contain numbers for projected volumes and revenues over the next ten years that can be used to estimate what the Postal Service is planning for future price increases under the newrate authority.
The Base Case assumes total mail and package volumes will fall to 82.6 billion by 2030 (Figure 28, p. 46), with 6.6 billion pieces of that in packages (p. 42). Market Dominant volumes in FY 2030 are thus projected to be around 76 billion pieces. The Base Case table also provides Market Dominant revenues for each year, with revenues in 2030 falling to $32.2 billion. The Base Case assumes rate increases at the current CPI cap, which has been about 2 percent over the past few years. Using these assumptions, one can calculate what the Postal Service is projecting for annual volumes for Market Dominant products. The “Delivering for America” Case uses the new rate authority to make its calculations (Figure 35, p. 51). It projects that revenues in 2030 will fall to $37.2 billion (as opposed to $32.2 billion in theBase Case).
If one assumes volumes over the next ten years turn out to be the same as in the base case (which is optimistic, since a rate increase may negatively impact volumes), one can calculate the average revenue per piece and the annual rate increases under both scenarios. Here’s a table pulling these projections and estimates together. It uses the annual revenues as shown for both scenarios in the 10-year plan’s tables, the volume for FY20 as stated in the Revenue, Pieceand Weight Report
and for FY2030 as indicated by the 10-year plan, and a CPI of 2 percent. The other calculations are derived from these numbers. The Postal Service appears to expect annual volume declines of about 4.5 percent for Market Dominant products — significantly more than the 3 percent declines of the past decade, but within reason. The bottom line shows that under the Base Case over the next ten years revenues will total about 361.6 billion compared to 392.5 billion under the “Delivering for America” Case — a difference of about$31 billion.
A table in the 10-year plan (Figure 29, p. 47) says the revenue impact of implementing the new rate authority will range from $35 billion to $52 billion. It’s not clear how the Postal Service came up with these larger estimates, but they may be based on a lower rate of volume decline over the next ten years. If the declines returned to an average of 3 percent annually (as in the past decade) and the rate increases were the same as in the above table, the additional revenue generated by the plus-CPI increases would be about $47 billion. In any case, it appears that $30 billion is a conservative estimate for what the Postal Services sees the new rate authority bringing in. Increasing Market Dominant revenues by this sum at the same time volumes are declining by about 4.6 percent a year would require rate increases averaging around 1.5 percent above a CPI of 2 percent. Here’s how things might play out for the remainder of FY 2021 and for FY 2022. Sometime over the next couple of weeks, the Postal Service announces a 3.6 percent rate increase, leaving 0.9 percent of the density-based rate authority (4.5 percent) banked for future use. The proposed increase needs to be approved by the Board of Governors and the PRC, and then there’s a 90 day notification period. Let’s say the increase goes into effect as of August 1, 2021. During August and September (the last months of FY 2021), it would yield about $220 million in additional revenues. That’s just about the difference between the projections for FY 2021 in the Base Case ($39.4 billion ) and the “Delivering for America” case ($39.6 billion). Let’s assume this increase remains in effect until January 2022, at which time the Postal Service uses some of its banked rate authority to add another 0.6 percent to the regular CPI increase of 2 percent. For the remainder of FY 2022, the additional rate authority would thus be 4.2 percent. For FY 2022, this would yield about $1.6 billion in additional revenues — the difference between the two scenarios ($38.9 and $40.5 billion). This is all just speculation, of course. The Postal Service should be announcing the new rate increase sometime soon, and the guessinggame will be over.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest EmailPrintFriendly Share
THIS WEEK MARKS THE 51ST ANNIVERSARY OF THE LARGEST WILDCAT STRIKE IN U.S. LABOR HISTORY: THE GREAT POSTAL STRIKE OF 1970March 15, 2021
March 18th marks the day fifty-one years ago when postal workers walked off the job in New York City in what soon became the largest wildcat strike in U.S. labor history. Last March we posted this article by postal historian Phil Rubio, author of _Undelivered: From the Great Postal Strike of 1970 to the Manufactured Crisis of the U.S.Postal Service_
. The article is
as good as ever, so we’re posting it again this year. ------------------------- Photo by Natalie M. Anderson For eight days in March 1970, over 200,000 postal workers staged an illegal “wildcat” strike — the largest in United States history — for better wages and working conditions. Picket lines started in New York and spread across the country like wildfire. Strikers defied court injunctions, threats of termination, and their own unionleaders.
In the negotiated aftermath, the U.S. Post Office became the U.S. Postal Service, and postal workers received full collective bargaining rights and wage increases, all the while continuing to fight for greater democracy within their unions. Using archives, periodicals, and oral histories, Philip Rubio shows how this strike, born of frustration and rising expectations and emerging as part of a larger 1960s-1970s global rank-and-file labor upsurge, transformed the post office and postal unions. In this post, Dr. Rubio writes about the importance of commemorating the nationwide postal wildcat strike on the day of its fiftieth anniversary. You can also read his 2015 blog post, which includes a more detailed account of the strike, here.
THE GREAT POSTAL WILDCAT STRIKE JUBILEE “Wildcats” are strikes not authorized by the unions, but this strike was also illegal, as a 1912 law bars federal government workers from striking. Nevertheless, for eight days over 200,000 workers struck the U.S. Post Office Department across the country in a dozen states and hundreds of post offices. They struck for a living wage and job dignity. The strike forced passage of the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) that transformed the post office into a self-supporting government/corporate hybrid called the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) in 1971. President Richard Nixon and Congress ended further strike threats by extending pay raises and _full_ collective bargaining rights to postal workers—the only federal employees who enjoy those rights to this day. Their strike also initiated a process of greater democratization of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC ), and the new American Postal Workers Union (APWU , product of five unions merging in 1971). Unfortunately, our society has largely forgotten the 1970 postal strike. What historians choose to research and publish matters, and amazingly, this strike has so far gained little attention from labor historians. It has fallen to strike veterans, the postal unions, and labor activists to keep that memory alive and mark that date in anticipation this year of the strike’s “jubilee” (also known as the fiftieth anniversary). Remembering how that landmark rank-and-file rebellion happened is no mere exercise in nostalgia. Not only can it refresh our collective memory and help us revise a fuller picture of that period of American labor history, but it also teaches us the possibilities as well as the limitations of labor action today. I devoted a chapter to the strike in my previous book for UNC Press in 2010—_There’s Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality_.
Even then, I thought the strike’s history needed a fuller telling. It is also a story that I felt needed connecting to the 2009 postal financial crisis, which I argue in my new book that Congress and the George W. Bush administration politically manufactured—although its effects have been very real. Read more.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest EmailPrintFriendly Share
More
Search
STOP THE SLOW DOWN
If
you'd like to submit comments about the USPS plan to slow down the mail, you can use this form to submit comments to the Federal Register.
You can also file comments with the Postal Regulatory Commission, which is reviewing the plan; the instructions can be found on ourN2021-Dashboard .
SAVE THE POST OFFICE ON TWITTERRECENT POSTS
IS ENDING AIR MAIL UNFAIR? TESTIMONY FOR THE PRC’S ADVISORY OPINION ON CHANGING SERVICE STANDARDSJune 3, 2021
HOW THE POSTAL REFORM BILL MAY HELP THE POSTAL SERVICE SLOW DOWN THEMay 21, 2021
A TALK WITH THE FOUNDER OF THE “SAVE THE POST OFFICE” WEBSITEMay 14, 2021
MAPPING OUT THE CHANGES IN USPS SERVICE STANDARDSMay 6, 2021
FEATURED POSTS
NEW DASHBOARD ON THE PRC ADVISORY OPINION ON THE CHANGE IN SERVICESTANDARDS
April 28, 2021
THE 2020 MAIL DELAYS: STATS & CHARTSFebruary 14, 2021
DEJOY’S 57 VARIETIES OF COST CUTTING: WHAT’S IN THE NEW OIG REPORT—AND WHAT’S NOT?October 26, 2020
A NEW AGENDA FOR POSTAL REFORMOctober 18, 2020
A FORMER
POSTMASTER’S VIEW: ARTICLES BY MARK JAMISON View as “e-book” here.
LINKS
MENUMENU
* Blogs & News Sites* Dead Tree Edition
* Going Postal
* PostalMag
* Postal Employee Network* PEN Postal News
* Postal News
* Postal Newsgroup
* Post Office Freak
* Postal Reporter
* PostalReporter News Blog * RuralInfo Postal News * 21st Century Postal Worker* Organizations
* APWU
* AUSPL
* Grand Alliance to Save Our Public Postal Service * League of Postmasters* NALC
* NAPUS
* NPMU
* NRLC
* PostCom
* Government Agencies * Office of Inspector General* OIG Blog
* Postal Regulatory Commission* USPS Newsroom
* US Postal Service
* Resource pages
* Historic post offices * Network Rationalization Plan* POStPlan
* Postal Banking
* Campaign for Postal Banking * Friends of Postal Banking * OIG: The Road Ahead for Postal Financial Services * OIG: Providing Non-Bank Financial Services for the Underserved * It’s Time for Postal Banking by Mehrsa Baradaran * Resources on Postal Banking * Post office Photos* Flickr
* Going Postal
* Living New Deal
* Photogrammar
* Post Office Freak
* PostalMag
* PMCC
* Waymarking
REPORTS
MENUMENU
* Government Reports * ACHP: Preserving Historic Post Offices * OIG: Post Office Relocation Proces * OIG: Preservation and Disposal of Historic Properties * OIG: What Postal Services Do People Value Most * History of Post Office Construction 1900-1940 * Postal Facilities Constructed or Occupied 1940-1971* More reports
* USPS Facilities Lists * USPS Owned Facilities (2-15-21) * USPS Leased Facilities (2-15-21) * USPS Facilities Reports State-by-State (as of Dec. 2019) * CPOs & CPUs FY2020 * USPS Leased Facilities (2018) * USPS Leased Facilities State Reports (2018) * USPS Owned Facilities (2018) * USPS Owned Facilities State Reports (2018) * More Facilities Lists * STPO Facilities Lists * Post Office Suspensions & Discontinuances 2008-2017 * Historic Post Offices sold or for sale 2009-2018 * Post Offices on or eligible for the National Register * New Deal Post Offices* More lists
* USPS manuals
* PO-101: Discontinuance Guide * Postal Operations Manual * More USPS manuals & handbooksTOPICS
MENUMENU
* Tags
* Alternative retail access* Amazon
* Berkeley PO
* Bronx GPO
* CBRE
* Chicago MPO
* Contract Postal Units* Court cases
* Emergency Suspensions* Excess space
* Exigent Rate Increase* Financials
* Historic Post Offices * Household Diary Study* Internet myth
* Legislation
* Load Leveling
* Media coverage
* Modes of delivery
* Moratorium on closings * Negotiated Service Agreements * New Deal Post Offices* PAEA
* Plant consolidations * Post office closings * Post Office Murals * Post Office Relocations* Post Office Sales
* Postal history
* Postal Pulse
* Postal Banking
* POStPlan
* Premier Post Offices * Presidential Task Force* Privatization
* Repurposed post offices* Saturday delivery
* Service Standards
* Secret market survey* Staples
* Trump Hotel
* Universal Postal Union* UPS
* Venice CA
* Voting by Mail
ARCHIVE
2021
* – June __ (1)
* Is ending air mail unfair? Testimony for the PRC’s Advisory Opinion on Changing Service Standards* + May __ (3)
* + April __ (2)
* + March __ (3)
* + February __ (5)
* + January __ (1)
2020
* + December __ (2)
* + November __ (2)
* + October __ (9)
* + September __ (5)* + August __ (16)
* + July __ (8)
* + June __ (4)
* + May __ (16)
* + April __ (11)
* + March __ (3)
* + February __ (6)
* + January __ (7)
2019
* + December __ (3)
* + November __ (7)
* + October __ (8)
* + September __ (11)* + August __ (6)
* + July __ (5)
* + June __ (4)
* + May __ (3)
* + April __ (3)
* + March __ (2)
* + February __ (2)
* + January __ (2)
2018
* + December __ (4)
* + November __ (10)* + October __ (11)
* + September __ (4)* + August __ (8)
* + July __ (17)
* + June __ (16)
* + May __ (18)
* + April __ (23)
* + March __ (12)
* + February __ (15)* + January __ (11)
2017
* + December __ (5)
* + November __ (5)
* + October __ (14)
* + September __ (8)* + August __ (17)
* + July __ (8)
* + June __ (10)
* + May __ (3)
* + March __ (10)
* + February __ (7)
* + January __ (11)
2016
* + December __ (2)
* + November __ (7)
* + October __ (14)
* + September __ (8)* + August __ (21)
* + July __ (10)
* + June __ (18)
* + May __ (22)
* + April __ (25)
* + March __ (14)
* + February __ (10)* + January __ (15)
2015
* + December __ (5)
* + November __ (10)* + October __ (21)
* + September __ (16)* + August __ (11)
* + July __ (14)
* + June __ (13)
* + May __ (12)
* + April __ (27)
* + March __ (25)
* + February __ (18)* + January __ (19)
2014
* + December __ (10) * + November __ (11)* + October __ (15)
* + September __ (7)* + August __ (9)
* + June __ (3)
* + May __ (4)
* + April __ (2)
* + March __ (3)
* + February __ (6)
* + January __ (31)
2013
* + December __ (53) * + November __ (44)* + October __ (32)
* + September __ (43)* + August __ (47)
* + July __ (49)
* + June __ (24)
* + May __ (7)
* + April __ (11)
* + March __ (15)
* + February __ (13)* + January __ (10)
2012
* + December __ (4)
* + November __ (7)
* + October __ (4)
* + September __ (5)* + August __ (12)
* + July __ (18)
* + June __ (19)
* + May __ (19)
* + April __ (14)
* + March __ (17)
* + February __ (19)* + January __ (17)
2011
* + December __ (19) * + November __ (24)* + October __ (41)
* + September __ (60)* + August __ (46)
* + July __ (55)
* + June __ (38)
* + May __ (34)
* + April __ (9)
ARCHIVES
Archives Select Month June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011__ __
__
__
* Alternative retail access* Amazon
* Berkeley PO
* Bronx GPO
* CBRE
* Chicago MPO
* Contract Postal Units* Court cases
* CPWU Newsletters
* Election Mail
* Emergency Suspensions* Excess space
* Exigent Rate Increase* For sale
* Financials
* Reports and Studies * Historic Post Offices * Household Diary Study* Internet myth
* Legislation
* Load Leveling
* Media coverage
* Modes of delivery
* Moratorium on closings * Negotiated Service Agreements * New Deal Post Offices* PAEA
* Plant consolidations * Post office closings * Post Office Murals * Post Office Relocations* Post Office Sales
* Postal History
* Postal Pulse
* Postal Banking
* Postal Rates
* Postal Reform
* POStPlan
* PRC cases
* Premier Post Offices * Presidential Task Force* Privatization
* Recommended Reading * Repurposed post offices* Saturday delivery
* Service Standards
* Secret market survey* Staples
* Trump Hotel
* Universal Postal Union* UPS
* Venice CA
* Voting by Mail
* Work Hour Reduction Plan Type and Press “enter” to Search _Toggle the Widgetbar_✓
Thanks for sharing!
AddToAny
More…
previousnextslideshowDetails
Copyright © 2024 ArchiveBay.com. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | DMCA | 2021 | Feedback | Advertising | RSS 2.0