Postal Service to pay millions in performance bonuses

Government executive ^ | 12/4/01 | Matthew Weinstock

[Neets]

First off, if they closing out the year in the red..maybe the ought to reconsider these bonuses.

Second of all:

Postal Service officials maintain that the government, not ratepayers, should bear the cost of those machines.

Someone tell these stupid Postal Service officials that the government gets their money to pay for those machines from the ratepayers/tax payers. How freepin stupid.

[The_Expatriate]

Postal Service officials maintain that the government, not ratepayers, should bear the cost of those machines.

And just where do these Postal Service officials think that the government gets its money?

[The_Expatriate]

Hey, that's no fair; you typed faster than I did. :-)

[Neets]

yea, but you did it in fewer words than i did LOL

[leadpenny]

$1.68 Billion in losses.
$124.5 Million in bonuses.
And now they are going to ask for a 12% ($0.03) increase in the price of a 1st Class Stamp.

Something wrong with this picture.

[freefly]

How an agency that CONSISTANTLY ends the year in the red can be handing out
bonuses to it's management for a job "well done" simply boggles the mind.

"Postal Service officials maintain that the government, not ratepayers, should bear the cost of those machines."

Obviously these "officials" are not the brightest bulbs on the block
if they don't understand where the government gets it's money from.

If they want to raise some revenue, perhaps they can start by raising the
rates on all of that junk mail that I keep finding crammed in my mailbox.
I'm not around to check it for a week or more at a time and, when I do,
I find 1 or 2 pieces of real mail and the rest is low-rate advertisements.
My mailman must use a 2x4 to get it all stuffed in the box.

[dread78645]

pay out $124.5 million ... the 85,000 Postal Career Executive

124,500,000 / 85,000 = ~ $1400
Not too shabby, unless you actually deliver a product
--or on the end of a anthrax sorter
(--or your "performance goals" was to lose money).

[GailA]

Considering they are ending the year again in the RED, and keep raising the price of stamps, these educated fools DON'T deserve a bonus! Bonuses are for jobs WELL DONE, not for failure.

[shortstop]

Rule #1 for performance bonuses is that the organization should at least break even. No break even or positive revenues, no bonus for anyone. If break even is attained, then those contributing most to the increased production or decreasing expenses should see a reward. Something is wrong with the USPS formula. If they were a private enterprise with competition they would have been out of business long ago.

[Neets]

LOL...exactly!!!!!!!

[kcvl]

We just had a NEW post office built in a 26,000 pop. town. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the old one because they are STILL using it because some in our town wouldn't allow them to shut it down because of convenience. In other words...THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BUILT A NEW ONE BECAUSE IT WASN'T NEEDED!!!

[cynicom]

There is a simple solution. Sell half of Postal Service to UPS and the other half to Fedex and let them set their own rules.

[freebilly]

For now, the first customers will be deep-pocketed institutions such as the U.S. Postal Service and General Electric, the National Parks Service and Amazon.com

This is from Drudge's report on The Segway. Great to know all y'all have such deep pockets.

[Registered]

Good idea!! What about the Postal Service Ads and Sponsorship budget? How many ads ran last year and at what cost? How many sporting events did they sponsor? This is absurdity!

[TwoStep]

**Ping**

[hattend]

The Postal Service will pay out $124.5 million to executives, managers, supervisors and postmasters for meeting performance goals in fiscal 2001

and then:

But Strasser also delivered some bad news--the agency lost $1.68 billion in fiscal 2001, $1.2 billion more than anticipated.

Me thinks they need higher performance goals.

[bimbo]

... for meeting performance goals in fiscal 2001, ...

FOR MEETING PERFORMANCE GOALS???? They ran a HUGE deficit in fiscal 2001

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

ping