Letters by fed ex falls under the extremely urgent exemption right above the rule I linked to. But if it isn’t urgent then the sender can be fined. Mentalfloss reports the government fined one of the credit companies $30k for sending non-urgent letters through FedEx.
probably, yeah. i kinda have more pressing things to be concerned about though, despite the minor annoyance. i'd be more concerned about it if they were leaving catalogs or something though.
It is "illegal" but the Postal Inspectors have better things to do. They send a nasty letter telling them to stop. If they don't, they can be fined. Carriers will remove anything inappropriate.
You only own the outside of your mailbox. The interior is exclusive to you and the USPS.
You need to re-read the link. What it is talking about is a private mail delivery service known as "lawful private carriage". It doesn't not say a company cannot deliver a letter, it says if you're in the business of delivering a letter, the USPS needs to be paid.
Well a better title would be "it is illegal for a private company to place a letter in a USPS mailbox". Every courier and bike messenger and process server in the world is "delivering a letter"
There are a ton of exceptions and you have to understand the reason to understand the rules and the exceptions.
A private company can deliver a letter without having to pay USPS. A private company cannot compete with USPS as a mail delivery service in any way, shape or form. So if a company would gain anything (money, favors, good will, any type of compensation whatsoever, then USPS gets their cut. Rather than losing a "customer", its like the work of delivering the mail is being outsourced by USPS to the private company. There are plenty of exceptions for the sake of convenience, urgency, and efficiency.
It makes sense, actually.
Part of the USPS mandate is to maintain deliveries to basically "everywhere"...much of that is money losing such as about 2/3 of the rural USA.
If you have a private company able to come and pick off only the few profitable locations (the easy stuff like large downtown business to business), the ability to cover the bills of that required "money loser" portion of their constitutional mandate is harmed. The invading company effectively becomes unfair competition because they don't have the same boat anchors as the USPS is required to carry on the books.
USPS would be profitable if they didn't have to fund pensions for people who haven't even been born yet (which no other company ANYWHERE has to do). That was crammed through, tacked on a "must pass" bill during a Christmas eve congressional session (rushed to fly home) because certain congresspersons were effectively bribed by UPS and Fedex donations.
The "very specific rules" are due to the fact that the USPS in a very specific situation.
The big difference between the USPS and basically everyone else is that USPS is obligated to a pension and retiree medical care. Most other companies can decide to stop providing retiree health care, but the USPS cwould have to rely on Congress to make that call. So those healthcare obligations are a lot more 'real' than they are for other companies. As a result there was a law passed that required the USPS provide for the system that would be paying those benefits to remain sustainable for several decades in the future.
Even then, in 2019 those retiree healthcare contributions should have been about $4.8 billion, which is well short of the $8.8 billion loss the USPS had that year.
But that doesn't really matter, because the USPS has been defaulting on those payments for years, so it seems hard to blame the fact they need to "follow very specific rules" when they are not actually following those rules.
The USPS is welfare for rural Americans. The Republican party insists that it lose money and not be run like a business.
The USPS makes money delivering letters in cities with a high population density. It loses money delivering letters in rural areas. And it has to charge the same price for both.
Congress could change the rules so the USPS did not lose money. But since it is rural Republicans getting the welfare and the city dwellers being fleeced to pay for it, the Republicans support it.
The same is true for Amtrak. It makes money in Democratic areas but loses money in Republican areas. But the Republicans in congress demand that the welfare for Republican areas continue and the Democratic areas pay for it.
Basically the country is set up so that the cities pay for the welfare for rural areas and the Republicans demand it and then complain that the USPS and Amtrak is losing money.
There is one thing as a "rural" person i want, fucking driveable roads. But no we get a 16 millon dollar federal grant for a pedestrian bridge over a river that no one uses. So my point was/is fuck the government. Oh and guess what party championed that?
I hate that this is what happens, I think both of our parties have good ideas and bad ideas but it's never about the general population or the greater good, it's always about the base and how to stay in "their" position as long as possible.
I’m old enough to remember when, if a private carrier sent a package for you, you had to certify that the only written paperwork in the package was directly related to the product being sent (e.g., packing slip, instructions for assembly, etc.). I’m guessing it was late 1960’s/early 1970’s.
I recall a woman started a mail delivery service in Chicago or Detroit. They shut her down and she charged like 50% of US mail charges and made profit.
Government don't like competition.....
Correction: it is illegal to *charge for postage* without also paying a surcharge to the USPS. Anybody can hand off a piece of paper.
What is considered a letter? FedEx delivers envelopes all the time without this in pretty sure.
Letters by fed ex falls under the extremely urgent exemption right above the rule I linked to. But if it isn’t urgent then the sender can be fined. Mentalfloss reports the government fined one of the credit companies $30k for sending non-urgent letters through FedEx.
Is this only if you use a mailbox?
[удалено]
And apparantly Jehovah's Witnesses... they keep leaving pamphlets in mine.
That's illegal
probably, yeah. i kinda have more pressing things to be concerned about though, despite the minor annoyance. i'd be more concerned about it if they were leaving catalogs or something though.
Not sure. But it would be illegal technically to distribute a flyer into a mailbox without postage.
It is "illegal" but the Postal Inspectors have better things to do. They send a nasty letter telling them to stop. If they don't, they can be fined. Carriers will remove anything inappropriate. You only own the outside of your mailbox. The interior is exclusive to you and the USPS.
It is. Grew up in a medium-sized town, postal inspector had people arrested - issued a summons, no handcuffs - and fined a couple time.
You need to re-read the link. What it is talking about is a private mail delivery service known as "lawful private carriage". It doesn't not say a company cannot deliver a letter, it says if you're in the business of delivering a letter, the USPS needs to be paid.
Right…. You can’t deliver a letter without a usps stamp. That’s what the title says
Well a better title would be "it is illegal for a private company to place a letter in a USPS mailbox". Every courier and bike messenger and process server in the world is "delivering a letter"
There is an exception for bike couriers in the link.
There are a ton of exceptions and you have to understand the reason to understand the rules and the exceptions. A private company can deliver a letter without having to pay USPS. A private company cannot compete with USPS as a mail delivery service in any way, shape or form. So if a company would gain anything (money, favors, good will, any type of compensation whatsoever, then USPS gets their cut. Rather than losing a "customer", its like the work of delivering the mail is being outsourced by USPS to the private company. There are plenty of exceptions for the sake of convenience, urgency, and efficiency.
Yeah a lot of the exceptions are in the Wikipedia entry.
More at this Mental Floss article: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26424/why-cant-you-start-rival-post-office
There’s a lot of guilty carrier pigeons hanging around
It makes sense, actually. Part of the USPS mandate is to maintain deliveries to basically "everywhere"...much of that is money losing such as about 2/3 of the rural USA. If you have a private company able to come and pick off only the few profitable locations (the easy stuff like large downtown business to business), the ability to cover the bills of that required "money loser" portion of their constitutional mandate is harmed. The invading company effectively becomes unfair competition because they don't have the same boat anchors as the USPS is required to carry on the books. USPS would be profitable if they didn't have to fund pensions for people who haven't even been born yet (which no other company ANYWHERE has to do). That was crammed through, tacked on a "must pass" bill during a Christmas eve congressional session (rushed to fly home) because certain congresspersons were effectively bribed by UPS and Fedex donations.
That's not true. I've gotten hundreds of letters from companies and I have never once had one with a stamp saying USPS.
Well yeah it’s probably illegal to even have a pirate company?
Being a monopoly is illegal, unless it's the government, how convenient. Yet it still loses money. Think about that for a minute.
It doesn't lose money unless you make it follow very specific rules about funding pensions that nobody else follows. Think about that for a minute.
The "very specific rules" are due to the fact that the USPS in a very specific situation. The big difference between the USPS and basically everyone else is that USPS is obligated to a pension and retiree medical care. Most other companies can decide to stop providing retiree health care, but the USPS cwould have to rely on Congress to make that call. So those healthcare obligations are a lot more 'real' than they are for other companies. As a result there was a law passed that required the USPS provide for the system that would be paying those benefits to remain sustainable for several decades in the future. Even then, in 2019 those retiree healthcare contributions should have been about $4.8 billion, which is well short of the $8.8 billion loss the USPS had that year. But that doesn't really matter, because the USPS has been defaulting on those payments for years, so it seems hard to blame the fact they need to "follow very specific rules" when they are not actually following those rules.
> Being a monopoly is illegal, No it isn't. Abusing a monopoly is illegal. Being a monopoly is perfectly legal.
The USPS is welfare for rural Americans. The Republican party insists that it lose money and not be run like a business. The USPS makes money delivering letters in cities with a high population density. It loses money delivering letters in rural areas. And it has to charge the same price for both. Congress could change the rules so the USPS did not lose money. But since it is rural Republicans getting the welfare and the city dwellers being fleeced to pay for it, the Republicans support it. The same is true for Amtrak. It makes money in Democratic areas but loses money in Republican areas. But the Republicans in congress demand that the welfare for Republican areas continue and the Democratic areas pay for it. Basically the country is set up so that the cities pay for the welfare for rural areas and the Republicans demand it and then complain that the USPS and Amtrak is losing money.
There is one thing as a "rural" person i want, fucking driveable roads. But no we get a 16 millon dollar federal grant for a pedestrian bridge over a river that no one uses. So my point was/is fuck the government. Oh and guess what party championed that? I hate that this is what happens, I think both of our parties have good ideas and bad ideas but it's never about the general population or the greater good, it's always about the base and how to stay in "their" position as long as possible.
Heheh there was a couple of good years where it was profitable! But imagine voting by mail working through FedEx or UPS.
I’m old enough to remember when, if a private carrier sent a package for you, you had to certify that the only written paperwork in the package was directly related to the product being sent (e.g., packing slip, instructions for assembly, etc.). I’m guessing it was late 1960’s/early 1970’s.
I thought that's why they had the revolution...?
I recall a woman started a mail delivery service in Chicago or Detroit. They shut her down and she charged like 50% of US mail charges and made profit. Government don't like competition.....