Saturday mail axed

A 1 cent increase in stamp prices isn't the only money-generating move made by the post office in recent weeks.
Marie Havenga
Feb 7, 2013

 

Your mailbox will be letter-less on Saturdays beginning in August.

The U.S. Postal Service announced Wednesday that it will stop delivering mail on Saturdays in an effort to trim costs. Weekend package delivery will continue status quo.

The move is expected to save about $2 billion annually for the struggling government agency, which suffered close to a $16 billion net loss last year.

Mike Story, acting postmaster in Grand Haven, said he believes six-months notice is enough for residents to adjust their bill payment and letter-mailing habits.

Come August, don't plan on receiving your $10 birthday check from Aunt Thelma on a Saturday. But if auntie ordered you a gold bracelet or other nifty gift from the Internet, it will still be delivered in time for your weekend outing. The Grand Haven office — and other community post offices throughout the nation — will still be staffed on Saturdays.

Post office box customers can still retrieve their mail on weekends with no changes.

“Any post office box customer or any people that come to the window will still be able to get service on Saturday,” Story said. “We'll have the same hours we currently have.”

The Grand Haven post office has 18 rural route carriers and 12 city routes. Story said it is unknown at this time if the Saturday cutback will result in any job losses.

While e-mail and online bill payments have taken a toll on traditional mailing, online orders have spiked package delivery — up 14 percent since 2010, according to postal officials.

“E-mail is eroding our First Class mail volumes,” Story said. “Our bulk business is somewhat leveling off. Our greatest growth potential is in the packages.

"I do anticipate significant growth service-wide in our packages because we are much cheaper than (other delivery services)," he continued. "By delivering packages on Saturday, we will still have that presence seen.”

To read more of this story, see Saturday’s print or e-edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.

Comments

Lanivan

Since you asked...Your comprehension of the situation is vastly different from mine (nonwithstanding the fact that you may have been logistically in the thick of it back then). The Afghan search for Osama was the good "war". I would venture to say that there was not a single American - political or otherwise - who didn't support Bush 101%. It was the closing (slamming) the door on Tora Bora when Osama was in our sights, and using the faulty (yes - perhaps true during the Clinton admin, but no longer, and they knew it) WOMD bogeyman as a way for the neocons in charge to carry out their 1998 Iraq Regime Change Manifesto, that was the kicker. Democrats who initially supported the Iraq War and then later

Lanivan

That darn button moved on me again....reversed course were correct and chastised for it (remember the swiftboating of Purple Heart Kerry who was ridiculed for "flip-flopping" on the war - deathly quiet during Mitt's chronic flip-flopping), especially Hillary - who never did apologize, but how could she, being the Senator from Ground Zero?

Re-writing history? It was agonizing to see it all unfold - the lies, the deceit, the hubris, the enrichment of the military-industrial complex, the willful weakening of the country - frankly, it makes me sick when you and people who think like you (this includes liberals in this instance) the Iraq War to Obama's drone offensive. There, to me, is no comparison in presidential (or vice-presidential, as the case may be) expanded powers.

Of course, I trust Obama. If it were Romney with his hand on the button, I'd be as upset as you seem to be.

Lanivan

A slam-dunk!

Vladtheimp

Better have a chiropractor handy for the inevitable injury that accompanies patting yourself on the back in this manner. Slam Dunk? More like the sound of one hand clapping.

Lanivan

Oh man - lol! Hard to imagine not everybody has an ego the size of a basketball court, isn't it?

Just for your edification, I was responding to Mystic Michael's comment, where he very cleverly plays up spiff-balling and whack-a-doodle. It's just the luck of the draw that after our usual riff of replies, this particular one gets passed to the next page.

To clarify, Mystic Michael - nice steal.

Mystic Michael

Wish I could take credit for such verbal dexterity, Lanny. But if I managed to make a funny, it was entirely subconscious and intuitive, I assure you.

As much as I've enjoyed your little display of semantic sleight-of-hand, even more entertaining has been Vlad's ever more desperate attempts to change the subject. Extensive experience suggests that when a right-winger resorts to such measures, it's usually pretty good evidence that you've got him cornered, and he's trying to create a diversion so he can escape.

It's the human equivalent of a weasel gnawing off its own leg in order to get out of a trap... ;-)

MM

Lanivan

As an animal lover, ..ouch! It's just way too much fun setting traps and taking the bait. This particular species of wily weasel seems to have the ability to regenerate......trap on....

Mystic Michael

It's always fascinating when right-wingers criticize a Democratic administration on the issue of civil liberties. It has a certain "any weapon will do in a street fight" quality to it, doesn't it?

The real test, of course, by which to determine whether they sincerely mean any of it, is to see how outspoken they were during the last time a right-wing Republican was in the White House - and particularly one who was as notoriously oblivious to the very concept of civil liberties as was George W. Bush.

Hearken back with me, if you will, to those heady days of 2002, 2003, 2004 & 2005. Can anyone honestly recall even a single voice of integrity, rising up from the ranks of the wingnut peanut gallery, to call out Bush & Cheney for authorizing torture - in direct violation of our commitments under the Geneva Conventions? Or for cherry-picking lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel and analysts in the CIA, based solely on their willingness to tell Bush & Cheney what they wanted to hear? Or for denying American citizens their basic rights of habeas corpus owed under the U.S. Constitution? Or for compelling most of the major American telecom companies to cooperate in the Bush/Cheney administration's program of illegal domestic spying?

(*chirp*chirp*chirp*)

I rest my case...

MM

Lanivan

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]. Attributed to Karl Rove.

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear".

Mystic Michael

Thank you! Although Karl Rove makes my flesh crawl, it was worth citing this particular bit of hubris once more, just to illustrate what a pack of incorrigible weasels he and the rest of the Bushies really were - and still are. (Fellow Americans, will we ever learn from our mistakes?)

Truly, power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

MM

Lanivan

Of course! The right-wingers really, really want to privatize everything - schools, prisons, Social Security, Medicare, the postal service, our Federal parks and public lands, the list goes on and on, but stops short at Defense.

Whenever the right-wing Republicans promote or advocate for something that just doesn't quite add up, look for the money - it's that big pile at the end of the trail.

Mystic Michael

As with most "movements", this one could be divided into two camps: the True Believers and the Charlatans.

The objective of these particular true believers seems to be to undermine and to dis-empower any institution or program that still could effectively function as the voice & will of the people, so as to neutralize all opposition to their ultimate goal: the establishment of the New Feudalism.

It is a rancid ideology that reeks of special privilege, elitism, classism, "royalism", and a number of other evils that the American Revolution was supposed to have eliminated. Alas, human nature being what it is, there will always be those who feel that it is their right to rule over us "lesser folk".

As for the rest of that lot, they're pretty much the same sort of opportunistic weasels whom history has always endured: happy to ride the Neocon wave, so long as it gives them a chance to stuff their pockets at the expense of the ignorant gullibles of "Fox Nation" - and over the informed objections of the rest of us, if they can.

MM

Vladtheimp

WOW! Speaking of "movements" - this one is epic - a double-flusher.

Pages

 

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.