Criticism of the U.S. Postal Service's abundance of supervisors, problems with its retirement process, and possible shifts in its workforce were among the items of greatest interest to Dead Tree Edition readers this year.
The 10 most popular articles this year were all about the Postal Service, led by USPS Has Too Many Supervisors And Too Many Employees, Congressman Says with more than 18,000 page views and 1,140 hours on page. The Oct. 2 article (and its Oct. 16 follow-up, ranked #3 in popularity) became more significant a month later when the election made Rep. Darrell Issa the next chairman of the House committee overseeing the Postal Service.
Interest among postal workers concerning how their jobs might change showed up in high readership for USPS May Split Role of Letter Carrier By Creating "100% Street" Routes (ranked #2), Postal Service Plans to Use More Part-Time Employees (#6), and GAO Suggests Plant Closings, Two-Tiered Wage Structure for USPS (#7).
Concerns about practices that discourage USPS retirements showed up in the #4 ranking for Why Does USPS Make Retiring Difficult When It Has So Many Excess Employees? Tough Question #5 and #5 for How Does the Postal Service Discourage Early Retirement? Let Me Count the Ways.
Rounding out the Top 10 were Potter Quitting the Worst CEO Job in America, FSS Machines Shuffled Again -- But Do They Work?, and perennial favorite The Unofficial Guide to Flats Sequencing, which has been updated several times since its original publication nearly two years ago.
As for non-postal articles, readers spent the most time with NewPage Does The Curley Shuffle (Was it the article or the Three Stooges clip that drew them in?), Is Bankruptcy Inevitable for NewPage?, IRS Brings Son of Black Liquor Back From the Dead; Ruling May Be Worth Billions to U.S. Pulp Makers, and Newspapers Are Greener Than Web News, Says Environmental Expert.
While we're looking back on the year, allow me to walk you through the highlights and low points for Dead Tree Edition:
January: Dead Tree Edition reports that the regulations governing USPS price caps don't seem to anticipate the sort of deflation that occurred in 2010: "What is not clear is how the rate cap for 2011 will be calculated." Nine months later, the Postal Service realizes the regulations are not clear and asks the Postal Regulatory Commission how to calculate the rate cap for 2011.
February: D. Eadward Tree eats crow when newsprint manufacturer White Birch goes Chapter 11.
March: This blog breaks the news that publicly traded U.S. pulp manufacturers chalked up $6.5 billion in black liquor tax credits during 2009. Various media outlets have subsequently used that number without attribution. Are we really supposed to believe that they dug through the SEC filings of 21 companies to verify that the number was correct? Or is there a new rule of reporting that says you can rely on information from an anonymous blog as long as you don't cite it as the source?
April: We celebrate Earth Day by recommending the use of genuine Amazonian rubber condoms and the firing of Smokey the Bear.
May: The Associated Press distributes an article that for the first time quotes Dead Tree Edition as a source, in this case regarding a quarterly loss for Quad/Graphics. Someone wasn't paying attention to the new rules for citing anonymous blogs. (See March.)
June: Mr. Tree is named #43 on RISI's Power List of movers and shakers in the global paper industry. Still in shock, he reveals how he once confused parasitic wasps with parasitic WASPs.
July: Once again, Mr. Tree is found eating crow, this time after the IRS made "Son of Black Liquor" tax credits possible. He's still trying to figure out how the IRS determined that a "fuel meets the EPA registration requirements if the EPA does not require the fuel to be registered."
August: Print Media Centr's Deborah Corn, the Barbara Walters of the printing industry, publishes an extensive interview with Mr. Tree that delves into rumors that he lives in Hawaii.
September: A publisher offers Mr. Tree some actual money to write a series of articles in 2011. Stay tuned.
October: USPS announces that Pat Donahoe, whose double life as Mr. Tree had been exposed only five months earlier, will be the new Postmaster General.
November: Popular publishing analyst BoSacks' email newsletter says "my e-friend D. Eadward Tree has some of his usual excellent observations about our industry and the new magazine apps," referring to the article that introduced a new term -- app-oplexy. BoSacks responds to the resulting inquiries by insisting he doesn't know Mr. Tree's real identity. (Psst, don't tell Bo that his wife writes most of this blog's articles during his infamous poker games.)
December: Mr. Tree is so burned out that he goes nine days without publishing an article, then ends the hiatus with a rehash of what he previously published during the year. Hey, this Postmaster General thing is hard work.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Un-Intelligent Mail: Another Bungled Postal Regulation
Will the U.S. Postal Service ever learn how to create sensible regulations, or will it continue to find new ways of making the same mistake over and over again?
The latest example of the Postal Service’s regulatory two-step came Friday with the announcement of indefinitely delays to "Full-Service eDoc postage corrections" -- that is, denial of Full-Service Intelligent Mail barcode discounts because of alleged errors -- which were supposed to be implemented on Jan. 2. The ostensible reason was “to give mailers more time to use information from a new report to help correct errors in their electronic documentation,” but there’s more to the story than that.
“The USPS needs more time just as much as, if not more so, than the mailers,” wrote Lisa Bowes, who has reported extensively on Intelligent Mail trials and tribulations at Intelisent’s Postal Affairs Blog. “Making mistakes is a part of learning, but the USPS needs to also learn and try not to repeat its’ mistakes. Setting dates without adequate time to test and implement keeps biting everyone over and over again.”
We’ve seen this dance before, and not just with Intelligent Mail: USPS announces when a new regulation will be implemented, mailers point out flaws with the regulation or the implementation timetable, postal officials forge ahead as planned, and then at the last minute someone at postal headquarters avoids disaster by pulling the plug.
A classic case of poorly considered postal regulations came early last year when USPS announced that the specifications for window envelopes would be changed within a few months, making all currently standard formats illegal. (See It's Curtains for the Window Envelope.) If the bureaucrats who crafted the language had spoken to a few mailers first, they would have realized that their plan would have sent billions of inventoried envelopes and forms to the dumpster.
Fortunately in that case, the proposed regs were taken off the table after only a few days. Unfortunately, the Postal Service has apparently done nothing since then to start the process of getting mailers to switch to window envelopes that work better on letter-sorting machines.
Mailers and their vendors have been saying for months that the Postal Service’s information systems were not ready for it to assess noncompliance penalties for Full-Service Intelligent Mail barcodes (aka FUBAR codes). But in this case, all of the brave "Mission Accomplished" talk from Intelligent Mail executives apparently prevented L’Enfant Plaza from realizing the truth until the eleventh hour.
I’m not saying mailers have to approve or even like every postal regulation. But the Postal Service could anticipate and avoid many problems merely by listening to mailers instead of assuming we’re just a bunch of whiners.
Implementation of the Flats Sequencing System shows how dialog with mailers and mail service providers can help the Postal Service avoid disaster. For example, by discussing its plans for FSS facilities with publication printers a few years ago, postal officials learned that some of the buildings didn’t have enough loading docks or highway access.
The FSS plan originally envisioned all flats being addressed on the top of the back cover, which would have ruined magazines’ most valuable advertising space. The final regulations ended up allowing upside-down addresses at the bottom of the front cover, which met the Postal Service’s needs while causing only minor grumbling among publishers.
Mailers and postal officials have worked together in developing mail-preparation standards that are achievable at the printing plant and should help the FSS facilities operate more efficiently. Declining flat-mail volume and balky machines are big enough challenges for the FSS program, but at least it’s not being hampered by uncooperative customers.
Other articles about Intelligent Mail fiascoes include:
The latest example of the Postal Service’s regulatory two-step came Friday with the announcement of indefinitely delays to "Full-Service eDoc postage corrections" -- that is, denial of Full-Service Intelligent Mail barcode discounts because of alleged errors -- which were supposed to be implemented on Jan. 2. The ostensible reason was “to give mailers more time to use information from a new report to help correct errors in their electronic documentation,” but there’s more to the story than that.
“The USPS needs more time just as much as, if not more so, than the mailers,” wrote Lisa Bowes, who has reported extensively on Intelligent Mail trials and tribulations at Intelisent’s Postal Affairs Blog. “Making mistakes is a part of learning, but the USPS needs to also learn and try not to repeat its’ mistakes. Setting dates without adequate time to test and implement keeps biting everyone over and over again.”
We’ve seen this dance before, and not just with Intelligent Mail: USPS announces when a new regulation will be implemented, mailers point out flaws with the regulation or the implementation timetable, postal officials forge ahead as planned, and then at the last minute someone at postal headquarters avoids disaster by pulling the plug.
A classic case of poorly considered postal regulations came early last year when USPS announced that the specifications for window envelopes would be changed within a few months, making all currently standard formats illegal. (See It's Curtains for the Window Envelope.) If the bureaucrats who crafted the language had spoken to a few mailers first, they would have realized that their plan would have sent billions of inventoried envelopes and forms to the dumpster.
Fortunately in that case, the proposed regs were taken off the table after only a few days. Unfortunately, the Postal Service has apparently done nothing since then to start the process of getting mailers to switch to window envelopes that work better on letter-sorting machines.
Mailers and their vendors have been saying for months that the Postal Service’s information systems were not ready for it to assess noncompliance penalties for Full-Service Intelligent Mail barcodes (aka FUBAR codes). But in this case, all of the brave "Mission Accomplished" talk from Intelligent Mail executives apparently prevented L’Enfant Plaza from realizing the truth until the eleventh hour.
I’m not saying mailers have to approve or even like every postal regulation. But the Postal Service could anticipate and avoid many problems merely by listening to mailers instead of assuming we’re just a bunch of whiners.
Implementation of the Flats Sequencing System shows how dialog with mailers and mail service providers can help the Postal Service avoid disaster. For example, by discussing its plans for FSS facilities with publication printers a few years ago, postal officials learned that some of the buildings didn’t have enough loading docks or highway access.
The FSS plan originally envisioned all flats being addressed on the top of the back cover, which would have ruined magazines’ most valuable advertising space. The final regulations ended up allowing upside-down addresses at the bottom of the front cover, which met the Postal Service’s needs while causing only minor grumbling among publishers.
Mailers and postal officials have worked together in developing mail-preparation standards that are achievable at the printing plant and should help the FSS facilities operate more efficiently. Declining flat-mail volume and balky machines are big enough challenges for the FSS program, but at least it’s not being hampered by uncooperative customers.
Other articles about Intelligent Mail fiascoes include:
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
USPS Delay Means Smaller Price Increases for Mailers
If only every Postal Service delay were this beneficial to customers . . .
The maximum 2011 price increase on most types of mail dropped a bit this morning because the U.S. Postal Service did not submit price increases before the Consumer Price Index for November was released.
The price cap on such market-dominant classes as First-Class, Standard, and Periodicals dropped to 1.741%, down from 1.799% if USPS had announced price increases before today. The cap is likely to drop below 1.65% if the Postal Service waits for the December CPI to be released on Jan. 14 before submitting 2011 price increases.
As explained in Postage Rates Could Rise 1.8% As USPS Wins Rate Ruling, the Postal Service didn't know how inflation-based price caps would be calculated for next year until the Postal Regulatory Commission released a complex ruling late Friday.
The maximum 2011 price increase on most types of mail dropped a bit this morning because the U.S. Postal Service did not submit price increases before the Consumer Price Index for November was released.
The price cap on such market-dominant classes as First-Class, Standard, and Periodicals dropped to 1.741%, down from 1.799% if USPS had announced price increases before today. The cap is likely to drop below 1.65% if the Postal Service waits for the December CPI to be released on Jan. 14 before submitting 2011 price increases.
As explained in Postage Rates Could Rise 1.8% As USPS Wins Rate Ruling, the Postal Service didn't know how inflation-based price caps would be calculated for next year until the Postal Regulatory Commission released a complex ruling late Friday.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Postage Rates Could Rise 1.8% As USPS Wins Rate Ruling
Postal rates for the majority of mail are likely to rise about 1.8% early next year because the Postal Regulatory Commission has sided mostly with the U.S. Postal Service in a dispute over price caps.
Determining exactly what will happen to First-Class, Standard, and Periodicals rates as a result of the PRC’s complex ruling, issued late Friday, is a bit difficult to discern. But one likely scenario is that the Postal Service will announce average increases this week of 1.8% for these “market-dominant” classes, with implementation as early as February.
The Postal Service would have the latitude to raise the price of a First-Class stamp one cent, to 45 cents (a 2.3% increase), by keeping other First-Class increases lower than the cap.
The PRC ruled that the inflation-based price cap for the next round of price increases would be based on comparing the average Consumer Price Index for the most recent 12 months to that of the previous 12 months. The Affordable Mail Alliance objected to that approach in October (See Mailers Alliance Fights 'Nonsensical' Price-Cap Ruling), saying that it would unfairly ignore a deflationary period in 2009.
The method approved by the PRC would currently yield a price cap of 1.799%, but it is likely to edge down a bit this Wednesday (Dec. 15), when the CPI for last month will be released. If the CPI numbers continue their recent trend, the cap would probably be about 1.65% if USPS waits for the December numbers to raise rates.
The mailers alliance’s proposed method would compare the most recent 12 monthly CPI readings to those of calendar year 2008, resulting in a current price cap of 0.96%.
The ruling was not a total loss for mailers, however. The PRC determined that the deflationary period of early 2009 factors into calculation of USPS’s “unused rate authority”. That’s usually where the Postal Service can “bank”, for future increases, the difference between a rate cap and an actual rate increase. But the ruling cleaned out the bank, resulting in unused rate authority of -0.6% to -0.7% for each market-dominant class.
The rate bank’s negative balances introduce a “use-it-or-lose-it” element to the next rate increase: If any class’s average rate increase is less than the cap, the Postal Service will not be able to bank the difference for future rate increases.
The PRC’s ruling has no apparent impact on the Postal Service’s request for “exigent” rate increases, which is still in front of an appeals court.
Related articles:
Determining exactly what will happen to First-Class, Standard, and Periodicals rates as a result of the PRC’s complex ruling, issued late Friday, is a bit difficult to discern. But one likely scenario is that the Postal Service will announce average increases this week of 1.8% for these “market-dominant” classes, with implementation as early as February.
The Postal Service would have the latitude to raise the price of a First-Class stamp one cent, to 45 cents (a 2.3% increase), by keeping other First-Class increases lower than the cap.
The PRC ruled that the inflation-based price cap for the next round of price increases would be based on comparing the average Consumer Price Index for the most recent 12 months to that of the previous 12 months. The Affordable Mail Alliance objected to that approach in October (See Mailers Alliance Fights 'Nonsensical' Price-Cap Ruling), saying that it would unfairly ignore a deflationary period in 2009.
The method approved by the PRC would currently yield a price cap of 1.799%, but it is likely to edge down a bit this Wednesday (Dec. 15), when the CPI for last month will be released. If the CPI numbers continue their recent trend, the cap would probably be about 1.65% if USPS waits for the December numbers to raise rates.
The mailers alliance’s proposed method would compare the most recent 12 monthly CPI readings to those of calendar year 2008, resulting in a current price cap of 0.96%.
The ruling was not a total loss for mailers, however. The PRC determined that the deflationary period of early 2009 factors into calculation of USPS’s “unused rate authority”. That’s usually where the Postal Service can “bank”, for future increases, the difference between a rate cap and an actual rate increase. But the ruling cleaned out the bank, resulting in unused rate authority of -0.6% to -0.7% for each market-dominant class.
The rate bank’s negative balances introduce a “use-it-or-lose-it” element to the next rate increase: If any class’s average rate increase is less than the cap, the Postal Service will not be able to bank the difference for future rate increases.
The PRC’s ruling has no apparent impact on the Postal Service’s request for “exigent” rate increases, which is still in front of an appeals court.
Related articles:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)