USPS To Raise First Class Postage By a Penny Starting in January 2012
WASHINGTON — Beginning early next year, it will cost just a penny more to mail letters to any location in the United States, the first price change for First-Class Mail stamps (Forever stamps) in more than two and a half years. The new 45-cent price for Forever stamps is among price changes filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission today.
JANUARY 22, 2012 MAILING SERVICES PRICE CHANGE
BACKGROUND:
Prices for most Postal Service mailing services will change on January 22, 2012. Mailing services includes First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, Periodicals, Package Services and Extra Services. Prices for shipping services will also change on January 22. We will provide customers the new shipping services prices later this fall.
While actual percentage price increases for various products and services varies, the overall average price increase across all mailing services is capped by law at 2.1 percent, the rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
FIRST-CLASS MAIL HIGHLIGHTS:
- Letters (1 oz.) – 1-cent increase to 45 cents. This is the first increase in the price of a First-Class Mail stamp since May 2009.
- Single-piece letters additional ounce rate – unchanged at 20 cents.
- Postcards – 3-cent increase to 32 cents
- Letters to Canada or Mexico (1 oz.) – 5-cent increase to 85 cents
- Letters to other international destinations – 7-cent increase to $1.05
- The second ounce will be free for First-Class Mail Presort pieces weighing between one and two ounces.
ADDITIONAL PRICE ADJUSTMENT HIGHLIGHTS:
- The price increase for Standard Mail Letters is slightly below the overall average at less
than 1.9 percent - A new 3-month pricing option will be available to rent PO Boxes for people on the move and others that need a PO Box for a shorter time period.
- Delivery Confirmation will be free for several parcel products as the Postal Service continues to make tracking an integral component of parcels mailed at commercial rates.
ROLE OF THE POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION:
The new prices were filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission on Oct. 18, 2011. The Commission has 45 days to review the prices to verify they comply with the overall 2.1 percent price cap for each class of mail. The new prices will go into effect on Jan. 22, 2012.
Notice of USPS Rate Increase Filed With PRC
Postage Rates Could Rise 1.8% As USPS Wins Rate Ruling
According to Dead Tree Edition:
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’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.
Order issued by Postal Regulatory Commission
http://prc.gov/Docs/71/71180/Order_No_606.pdf
Related links:
U.S. Postal Service Announces Shipping Prices for 2011
the U.S. Postal Service is set to extend its popularity with consumers and shippers in the new year when new prices take effect. Prices for Priority Mail, Express Mail and other Shipping Services will change Jan. 2, 2011. In addition to an overall price change of 3.5 percent for Priority Mail, new prices for Express Mail, Global Express Guaranteed, Express Mail International, Priority Mail International, Parcel Select and Parcel Return Service will be effective Jan. 2.
Postal Service Prices Last Mile Aggressively in 2011 |
USPS: Incentive Programs Included in PRC Filing
USPS Tells PRC It Still Needs Rate Increase Even With $Billions Of Relief From Congress
From Postcom.org:
* USPS CFO Joseph Corbett has testifed before the Postal Regulatory Commission that, even if the Postal Service receives the billions of relief it is seeking from Congress, the Postal Service says it still needs a greater-than-inflation postal rate increase in order to survive. [EdNote: If this is true, the USPS as an institution is moribund. There is no way it can survive in its current guise. As they would say in German "das ende."]
* Former PRC chairman Blair told Corbett that it seems as if he’s laying a foundation for the argument that even more future exigent rate increases will be needed.
PRC Is Taking Affordable Mail Alliance’s Request To Dismiss Rate Case Under Advisement
Filed under: mailers, postal, postal news, press releases, rate increase, usps
The Postal Regulatory Commission issued the following :
ORDER TAKING MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER ADVISEMENT
(Issued August 4, 2010)
On July 26, 2010, the Affordable Mail Alliance filed a motion to dismiss the Postal Service’s proposed rate adjustment.1 Answers to the Motion were filed on August 2,2010, by the Postal Service and several other companies and organizations.2 These filings make a number of factual allegations that require further exploration during the upcoming proceedings established by Order No. 485.3 Given the need for further investigation of these factual allegations and the absence of a deadline for action on the Motion, the Commission is taking the Motion under advisement and will rule on the Motion at an appropriate time.4
1 Motion of the Affordable Mail Alliance to Dismiss Request, July 26, 2010 (Motion). The Affordable Mail Alliance describes itself as “a coalition of large and small businesses, nonprofit organizations and associations of mailers that together account for a majority of the mail sent in the
United States.” Id. at 1.
2 Response of the United States Postal Service to Motion of the Affordable Mail Alliance to Dismiss Request (Postal Service Response); Response of the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association to Affordable Mail Alliance’s Motion to Dismiss; Answer of the Saturation Mailers Coalition, Valassis Direct Mail, Inc., Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association to Motion of the Affordable Mail Alliance to Dismiss Request; Public Representative Answer to Motion of the Affordable Mail Alliance to Dismiss Request; Response of Intervenor National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO to Motion to Dismiss of Affordable Mail Alliance, all filed August 2, 2010 (“Responses”).
It is Ordered:
The Motion of the Affordable Mail Alliance to Dismiss Request and the responses thereto are hereby taken under advisement.
By the Commission.
Ruth Ann Abrams
Acting Secretary
3 Notice and Order Concerning Rate Adjustment for Extraordinary or Exceptional Circumstances,July 8, 2010, at 6.
4 Neither the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Pub..L. No. 109-435 (2006) nor the
Commission’s rules of practice impose a deadline for action on the Motion.Web Leveraged to Provide 24/7 Access and Enhance Training
Major Mailers Make Billions, But Demand Postal Worker Pay Cuts
Burrus Update #14-2010, Aug. 3, 2010
In their ongoing effort to shift wealth to the richest Americans, conservatives continually attack the pay and benefits earned by average workers. Over the past 20 years, the transfer of wealth has been dramatic. Despite significant increases in productivity, workers’ real wages have declined, while salaries, bonuses, dividends and “golden parachutes” for executives have skyrocketed.
A recent glaring example was the demand that auto workers agree to lower their wages — which were established over 50 years of often turbulent struggle — purportedly to enable American automobile plants to compete with foreign car manufacturers. The most outspoken advocates of union concessions were the opponents of healthcare reform, even though the costs related to employee health insurance that are included in the price of American-made automobiles exceed wages. Evidently, those who preach “efficiency” to justify low wages are selective in demanding it in other circumstances.
This holds true for postal costs. Those who demand worker sacrifices turn a blind eye to the $10 billion in profits earned by major mailers from worksharing.
Mailers’ Alliance Attacks
Recently, the Alliance for Affordable Mail launched an attack on postal workers’ pay and benefits. The Alliance, an association of large mailers that opposes a proposed postage increase, says that workers should endure a reduction of 33.9 percent of their pay and benefits.
As the press reports unprecedented profits by corporations with virtually no job creation, the Alliance points to the competition for low-wage employment and suggests that all workers should follow suit. This is the private-sector model that the association refers to in a
motion [PDF] before the Postal Regulatory Commission, which must consider the USPS-proposed rate hike.
The Alliance demands that postal management attack employee wages and benefits to bring them in line with non-union workers, many of whom are forced to accept any employer demands simply to remain employed. In anticipation of union resistance to demands for concession bargaining, the Alliance and its supporters have pushed regressive legislation that would guarantee their preferred outcome. (The major mailers support legislation that would require arbitrators to consider the financial health of the USPS when ruling on postal contracts. Arbitrators routinely do so, but requiring it as a matter of law is intended to tip the scales in management’s favor.)
A Mythical Model
The most egregious example of this attack on craft employees is the Alliance’s comparison to a mythical private-sector model of efficiency. Do these ivory-tower executives truly believe this bull, or are they attempting to pull the biggest scam since the Bernie Madoff debacle? The citation of the efficiencies of the marketplace is no more than a myth. Have they forgotten the scandals over the Defense Department’s purchase of $500 hammers and $300 toilet seats — from the private sector?
Closer to home, we have the “workshare postage discounts” of 10.5 cents offered to the private sector to affix five-digit barcodes. The free-market ideologues would have you believe that laissez-faire capitalism will correct such abuses on its own.
Postal Pay, ‘Gives’ and ‘Takes’
Well the truth is somewhere in between. Capitalism — including the opportunity for mailers to make billions of dollars in profits at the expense of the U.S. Postal Service — is the greatest generator of effort and ideas; but adherence to a model of efficiency based solely on low pay is seriously flawed. Despite the wage disparity between union-represented postal employees and employees of mail pre-sort houses, postal employees are far more efficient and productive — and we are worth every cent of the wages and benefits we bargained for.
If our members’ wages were based on the same factors used to determine workshare discounts, their pay would be off the charts. Can you imagine a wage rate for postal employees at 10.5 cents for each five-digit barcode? As you may recall, I have made a standing offer to Postmaster General Potter to set postal wages at the discounted rate. If the USPS avoids costs of 10.5 cents when private-sector mailers apply the barcode, it makes sense that postal employees’ compensation should equal this “perfect model of efficiency.” To be competitive, I have offered to take one tenth of a cent less.
The collective bargaining process produces “gives” and “takes” from all parties. Pointing out provisions that benefit labor without acknowledging the benefits management enjoys gives a distorted picture. These ideologues overlook the fact that our contract grants the Postal Service the right to hire non-career employees at a rate of pay set by management, and to deprive these workers of any benefits whatsoever; the right to furlough unprotected employees; flexibility to modify handbooks and manuals midterm, and to subcontract craft work. These and numerous other provisions of the negotiated agreements balance the demands of management and labor. The Alliance would strip the union of the provisions benefiting the workers while leaving intact management rights that were agreed to as quid pro quo (this for that).
Collective bargaining addresses the demands of competing groups and results in agreements that all parties pledge to abide by. The suggestion that one party should agree to abrogate key features of such an agreement while the other retains its benefits demonstrates that the spokespersons for the Alliance know nothing about the process of collective bargaining.
I respectfully suggest that those who have pre-determined conclusions about the outcome of postal contract negotiations temper their expectations. In a free society, collective bargaining leads to compromises that reconcile the demands of the employer and the employees to create mutually beneficial agreements.
William Burrus
President
U.S. Postal Service Seeks Dismissal of Pricing Protest
Urges Regulator to Decline ‘Invitation to Go Through the Looking Glass’
WASHINGTON — Saying the Affordable Mail Alliance made “manifestly misleading comparisons” and advanced a “strained and fatally flawed interpretation” of existing law, the U.S. Postal Service today asked the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) to deny an alliance request to dismiss the Postal Service’s current pricing request.
“The Commission should refuse the Alliance’s invitation to ‘go through the looking glass,’ deny the motion and proceed to a consideration of whether the Postal Service’s requested rate increases are ‘reasonable, equitable and necessary,” the Postal Service response states.
The Postal Service filed recommended price changes with the Postal Regulatory Commission on July 6, providing data and evidence that “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances” exist, allowing the Postal Service to seek prices above the current .6 percent Consumer Price Index cap. The Affordable Mail Alliance (AMA) last week asked the PRC to deny the request.
The Postal Service motion filed today lists a number of mistakes, misrepresentations and misinformation with the AMA’s request, including:
The Postal Service has proven extraordinary circumstances:
Precipitous, unprecedented and unforeseen drops in mail volume are inarguable and meet the definition and spirit of the law. In fact, a letter from two primary authors of the Postal Act, Sen. Thomas
R. Carper (D-DE) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), noted that “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances” include not only terrorist attacks and natural disasters, but also “other events that may cause significant and substantial declines in mail volume…that the Postal Service cannot reasonably be expected to adjust to in the normal course of business,” such as the worst recession since the Great Depression.
“Rather than engage in arcane disputes about whether a particular circumstance could arguably have been foreseen, the focus on the exigent inquiry should be of its impact on the Postal Service,” the Postal Service filing states.
The AMA knows that the Postal Service has very specific legislative and regulatory restraints in labor and workforce issues:
The Postal Service has no discretion under the law to suspend any benefits, payments, including matching contributions to workers’ Thrift Savings Plans. More than 93 percent of private sectors companies and 88 percent of public sector companies do not have union representation. Those that do are not forced to rely on an interest arbitrator to resolve contract negotiations.
The AMA erroneously and purposefully compares the Postal Service to its private-sector competitors:
The Postal Service is not a private sector company and faces unique constraints. Many of the cost-cutting efforts by other shipping companies are not an option for the Postal Service. These companies raised rates, increased surcharges, adjusted service levels and stopped payments into 401 (k) plans. These are either not options or require regulatory approval for the Postal Service.
The Postal Service clearly and indisputably demonstrated honest, efficient and economical management:
The Postal Service has achieved cost savings of $1 billion per year every year since 2001; in 2009 the cost savings reached $6.1 billion by reducing through attrition its workforce by the equivalent of 65,000 full time employees. In fact, it was able to reduce its career workforce from an all time high of 802,970 in 1999 to today’s 588,561, while focusing on improving service and growing postal products. Other successful efforts include halting construction of new postal facilities; negotiating an agreement with the National Association of Letter Carriers that adjusts letter carrier routes to reflect diminished volume; consolidating mail processing facilities.
“Considered as the basis for the relief it seeks, however, it (AMA filing) quickly collapses into a pastiche of selective memory, misunderstanding, and misrepresentations, leavened with a healthy dose of willful ignorance of the legal and political context in which the Postal Service operates,” the Postal Service filing states.
In every instance, the AMA chooses to ignore the political and legal realities the Postal Service faces, despite its members long and involved history with the Postal Service. The Postal Service cannot close facilities for economic reasons. There are a number of legal constraints and provisions affecting labor costs. The number of days mail must be delivered and pre-paying for retiree health benefits also are mandated and part of the political and regulatory reality for the Postal Service.
In its filing, the Postal Service urged the PRC to dismiss the AMA’s request.
“Substantively, the Motion is wholly deficient, in both its interpretation of the ‘extraordinary or exceptional circumstances;’ prong of the exigency standard, and in its interpretation of the requirement that an exigent increase be ‘reasonable and equitable and necessary’ to enable the Postal Service, under best practices of honest, efficient, and economical management, to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.”
USPS files response to AMA’s motion to dismiss exigency case
Sen. Susan Collins: USPS Proposed Exigent Rate Increases Are Not Justified Under Law
Filed under: postal, postal news, postal reform, press releases, usps
Senator Susan Collins issued the following press release:
SENATOR COLLINS AGREES WITH ARGUMENTS IN MOTION TO BLOCK PROPOSED POSTAL RATE HIKES
Collins Backs Position taken by the Affordable Mail Alliance
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and author of the landmark postal reform law, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, issued a statement today in support of the Affordable Mail Alliance’s Motion to Dismiss the U.S. Postal Service’s proposed rate increases.
The Alliance filed its motion with the Postal Regulatory Commission, arguing that the Postal Service’s rationale for its proposed rate hikes does not meet the required criteria to use an exigent rate case – which would allow postal rates to exceed the annual price increase cap.
Senator Collins’ statement follows:
“As the author of the 2006 postal reform law, I completely agree with the Affordable Mail Alliance that the Postal Service’s proposed exigent rate increases are not justified under law.
“Let me be clear. The authority to increase rates under an exigent case can only be used in extreme and unforeseen instances – such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other events that would cause significant and substantial disruptions in service. The law was not meant to be used to remedy poor economic performance or to offset an ongoing marketplace trend, such as the increased use of electronic over traditional mail.
“In addition to not meeting the criteria set forth in the law, the exigent rate case is simply a bad business decision. Rather than help restore postal solvency, an exigent rate increase will worsen the Postal Service’s crisis by further driving down mail volumes and thus revenues. Such action will erode further the Postal Service’s already declining customer base. The Postal Service should be looking at initiatives that will increase volume and attract more consumers. These rate increases will do just the opposite.”
Update: PRC Hearings On USPS Request For Rate Increase
From July 14 through July 27, the Commission will conduct and audiocast five hearings in Docket N2010-1, and three technical conferences in Docket R2010-4. Links to the audio will be posted here approximately 10 minutes prior to the broadcasts. Click on this message for the hearing schedule. http://www.prc.gov
On July 6, 2010, the Postal Service filed a proposed rate adjustment pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(1)(E) and 39 CFR 3010.60, et seq., of the Commission’s rules.\1\ The filing seeks “to increase rates for market dominant products in excess of the otherwise applicable limitations of 39 U.S.C. 3622(b)(1)(A) and 39 CFR 3010.11.” Id. at 11. The proposed prices represent an aggregate increase of approximately 5.6 percent and are to be implemented on January 2, 2011.
The June 16 conference has provided the Commission with a number of potentially useful suggestions and comments. One of the suggestions was that the Commission include a tentative schedule in the Commission’s initial order. The following schedule responds to that suggestion:
July 6, 2010 Exigent Request filed.
July 19, 2010 First Technical Conference (topics to be determined), to start at 2 p.m.
July 23, 2010 Second Technical Conference (if needed).
July 27, 2010 Third Technical Conference (if needed).
August 5, 2010 Deadline for filing suggested questions to be asked of the Postal Service during the public hearing. 39 CFR 3010.65(c).
August 10-12, 2010 Public Hearings.
August 17, 2010 Deadline for filing initial comments. 39 CFR 3010.65(f).
September 2, 2010 Deadline for filing reply comments. 39 CFR3010.65(g).
October 4, 2010 Deadline for Commission determination. 39 CFR
3010.66.
Absent specific notice to the contrary, all technical conferences and hearings will convene at 9:30 a.m., eastern daylight time in the Commission’s hearing room in Suite 200, 901 New York Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20268-0001. Further review of the Postal Service filing may warrant adoption of additional procedural dates and/or requirements. If so, the Commission will issue further procedural orders as it deems advisable or necessary in order to ensure both efficiency and fairness. In that connection, the Commission has taken under advisement the further comments and suggestions made by participants at the June 16, 2010 conference.
source: PRC
Sen. Susan Collins: USPS Rate Hike, Service Cuts May Lead To Fewer Customers
The U.S. Postal Service Tuesday announced plans to seek approval for a wide array of rate increases, filing its request with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC).
In response, Senator Susan Collins issued the following statement on the USPS proposal:
“As the principal author of the 2006 postal reform act, I am disappointed that the Postal Service is seeking rate increases that far exceed the rate of inflation, averaging between four and six percent and for one class of mail as high as 23 percent. Only when the Postal Service can demonstrate ‘exceptional or extraordinary circumstance’ does the law allow for rate increases that exceed the rate of inflation. The Postal Service cites as one factor justifying the exigent rate case ‘continued movement toward electronic alternatives’ despite that trend being neither unexpected nor extraordinary.
“The Postal Service’s proposal could actually worsen the erosion in its customer base. Raising the rate for catalogs by more than five percent will cause some businesses to reduce their mailings of catalogs and to direct more of their customers to websites for information about their products. The Postal Service’s plans to hike rates so substantially as well as to cut services may well produce a death spiral of fewer customers and ever declining volume, exactly the wrong direction,” Collins said.