Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I think no government entities should have a union. If they don't like pay, or work conditions (both of which are often VERY good), then they should simply go COMPETE in the private sector for employment like the rest of us do.
There's a huge amount of hypocrisy with pro-union politicians.
Federal politicians don't want unions at the Federal level, because they know that unions are best kept at the state level. That way, they can still get the benefits of union kickbacks, votes and campaign funds, but don't have to deal with unions practically setting up shop in their office and running things like you have with state government unions.
Obama and his staff run their mouth and get involved in the debate about scaling back collective bargaining, but then he turns around and freezes government worker's pay at the Federal level.
We need to feature amendments to constitutions with respect to government unions.
Government unions "negotiate" and "bargain" with the same politicians that they contribute campaign funds toward and the politician negotiates and bargains in bad faith with the taxpayer.
So what you end up with, is a system where the union members, union reps and the politician win and the taxpayer loses.
Similarly, at the Federal level, what you end up with is the entitlement recipient, the government bureacrat, the lobbyist and the politician wins, and the few who actually pay taxes and bear the burden lose.
Brilliant.
Unfortunately, the tax paying, non-union citizens are losing ground (in numbers).
"A dumb man never learns. A smart man learns from his own failure and success. But a wise man learns from the failure and success of others."
I agree on most counts, the challenge to me is how in the world do you then deal with big corporate money to offset? It is almost as scary or worse in my opinion. At least w/ Unions you do end up with the little guys getting paid instead of just a few guys in the boardroom wreaking havoc and making billions while they do it.
The current mail system of the United States is "no longer financially sustainable," and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is looking for billions of dollars in cuts to its services.
The postal service announced Thursday it was considering closing nearly 250 processing facilities, cutting equipment by 50 percent and slowing mail delivery in an extreme cost-cutting effort. It is looking for $3 billion in annual savings.
And as the president and Congress search high and low for ways to boost job creation, up to 35,000 people could be laid off as part of that effort.
"We are forced to face a new reality today, said Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe. With the dramatic decline in mail volume and the resulting excess capacity, maintaining a vast national infrastructure is no longer realistic."
Since the advent of email and other electronic communication, the postal service has seen a steady decline in its use. More than 43 billion fewer pieces of mail are sent now than they were five years ago. First-class mail has dropped 25 percent, and the transmission of stamped letters is down 36 percent over that time frame. The postage purchased to send first-class mail is a primary source of revenue for the USPS.
The American Postal Workers Union blasted the move.
The Postal Service should be urging Congress to address the cause of its problems not slashing service and demolishing its network," union president Cliff Guffey said.
And lawmakers responded to the announcement by repeating their calls for legislative action to help shore up those ailing finances.
"Congress and the administration must act quickly to help the Postal Service save itself," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said. "Failure to act will result in the Postal Service being insolvent within a year, if not sooner, bringing more pain to communities across the country and wreaking havoc on our already fragile economy."
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said it was time for Congress to allow the USPS to act "more like a true business."
"Congress must enact decisive and comprehensive postal reform," he said.
The USPS is expected to hit its $15 billion borrowing limit by the end of September and has indicated it would not be able to make a $5.5 billion payment due at that time. As the USPS seeks to delay that payment until the end of the year, those struggles are driving concerns that the agency could default.
Personally I like the idea of delivering mail every other day, instead of every day.
Does anyone actually check their mailbox every single day? For reasons other than boredom? Like something useful is actually in there??
For people that for some reason need daily mail retrieval (like corporations receiving checks into accounting), they could simply use a PO Box, and all PO Boxes would continue to receive mail daily (they are 1000x more efficient).
I'm also all for the idea of significantly raising the cost of a stamp. Let's just make it 1.50 or something and get it over with.
The real trouble is the bulk mail. The junk mail. I don't know anyone that isn't retired and over the age of 50 that actually looks through that crap anyway. Everyone else just wads it up as the junk is flying everywhere on your walk from the mailbox to your house, and tosses it in the trash.
So those bulk mailer guys will likely go away when the price triples. But that is fine, they need to modernize.
I still check everyday and do get more than junk mail (and still read a daily newspaper). I want daily delivery but could live with every other day as you suggest. Ultimately they will have to increase the price as you say but it's just unfortunate.....I guess what bothers me is that while I don't advocate bailouts it would be nice if the post office was helped out instead of the just banks when they where throwing money around.
Remember that 13 billion dollar handout to the banks....they could have given that to the post office instead.
I think you know what I mean...
By the way that junk mail is an important source of revenue for them....a necessary evil that helps keep the cost down for the rest of us.
I of course realize that it is inevitable that the postal service must change.....I just don't like it...