Postal Letter

Should the CEO of the US Postal Service take a pay cut?

He ran the organization into the ground. They recently raised their rates by 5% to $0.44 effective May 1. They are running a deficit so they are going to have to either cut staff or raise rates again to just break even. Companies are selling technology to allow a business to eliminate the need to mail invoices, statements, etc., so mail volume will be decreasing even further. This guy makes almost $850,000 and no one is outraged. Should he take a 20% pay cut?

Public Comments

1. His salary seems too high. I don't mind paying 44 cents for a stamp, and I find the USPS to be very reliable and timely, but a 20% pay cut would make sense to me. If he turns a profit at the postal service, then maybe his salary could go up again.
2. The CEO does not run the US Postal Service, the union does.
3. The income and expenses of the Postal Service is controlled by law, so it is imposable to claim the the head (no ceo of a government agency) man ran the post office into the ground. No, why should he take a pay cut considering the task at hand?
4. The postal service will eventually become just a parcel delivery service like UPS and FedEx. The CEO needs a cut in pay. On the bright side, junk mail will go down saving paper, but then printers here in US will lose money. What a mess.
5. No......I think they ( The Post Office ) should get a bail out & keep the head dude. I'm sure he can fix it. Sorry, just couldn't resist!
6. The feed trailer operation for the USPS is run by private contractors. Good idea. Just one problem...... The USPS, like most government agencies, refuses to accept that one of their contractors should actually make a profit. They insist that the contractor be unionized and require them to use DBE (disadvantage business) vendors with NO price controls. It is a back door method to redistribute wealth. Like most government agencies, it operates at a defecit and eventually runs out of money forcing rationing and cuts. This is exactly what you can expect from government controlled health care. See Walter Reed.
7. Maybe if they went out of business we wouldn't have to pay bills anymore.
8. He didnt run them into the ground. Email has taken place of regurlar mail. you said yourself companies are selling technology...etc..etc.. his job is not to create revenue it is to organize the post office. I thought the president was the highest paid Government employee. Where did you come up with 850k? Im not doubting you, I just thought the highest paid government workers was the president at 400k a year. I think the idea of changing them to 5 days a week is a good idea.
9. Remember that AMTRACK is losing billions, the Postal Service is losing billions and Social Security is diving into the pits....So let's allow these same managers to manage other businesses that we are so eager to allow the government to nationalize. Elections have consequences Ain't change wonderful
10. Any business or government agency that is failing or is losing money should make cuts across the board, starting at the top. Cutting wages for your everyday postal worker who only makes $8/hr doesn't make a big difference in the budget. Cutting wages from top management officials who are in charge of making all financial decisions with the company/agency will make a bigger difference in the overall budget.
11. How about just making mail delivery a private market good? Let the market decide how much to pay him.
12. i think no person that works for the government should make more then 500,000 that's 10 thousand dollars a week,2 thousand a day,no one is worth that much. i think they might need to revamp the post office,get it in tune with present times,but it is one of the few required things in the constitution
13. I think the post office has bigger problems than cutting one man's salary can fix. Yeah, it seems excessive under the circumstances, but adding another $100K or $200K to the Postal Service budget is NOT going to save it. It would be a symbolic but meaningless gesture.
14. Just more subsidies for people living on "unprofitable" routes -- i.e. farmers and other rural dwellers a.k.a. "Real Americans".