reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @AForeman1970
@AForeman1970 - Adam Foreman
Head of the Postal Service, Louis Dejoy is stepping down after losing $9.5 BILLION in 2024. In 2023 he lost $6.5 Billion. USPS has seen a 80% DECREASE in volume of mail but ADDED 190,000 employees Can we just say they were part of the trafficking so we can execute him? https://t.co/KcEp32dzgk
Video Transcript AI Summary
You keep asking about the post office's business model, but I didn't create the laws governing it; I'm just trying to fix the issues I inherited. You're exaggerating the hiring increases.
No one in the private sector would advise increasing employee numbers with a declining business. Instead, we insourced 190,000 jobs by hiring contractors at lower wages and benefits, which is inexplicable.
The reform of shifting costs isn't real reform; it's just moving debt to another account within the government. The main goal was to escape healthcare and pension costs. But government employees have dramatically higher healthcare and pension costs compared to contractors. By hiring more government employees instead of contractors, we're compounding the problem we were trying to solve three years ago.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You mentioned in your testimony that the post office is different than other areas of government that it has to operate like a private business. You also mentioned that about, 80% of the volume of first class mail has gone down over time. Can you think of a private business where 80% of what they're, you know, doing to make money is going down in volume that would actually increase their employees?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, senator, you keep asking I mean, I didn't make the laws that follow that organized the United States Postal Service. Okay? I came in, as I said, to the condition that we had, and I'm trying to fix it. Now you exaggerate the hiring aspects.
Speaker 0: I know no one in in private practice or investors who, know, give advice to a corporate board who would say, you have a declining business model. We're gonna increase the numbers. But then when you have a choice of hiring contractors that won't be paid the same wages or pension benefits or health care benefits that you pay your employees, that you're up a hundred and 90,000. You've insourced a hundred and 90,000 jobs. And and it's just sort of inexplicable.
The whole point that of the reform of shifting the cost is not really reform. It's a shell game. We just took a bunch of things that are still cost on your books, we put them on somebody else's books somewhere else in government. It's still a massive cluster in a way that the debt problem is just shifted over to another account. But in doing that, the main thing you were trying to get away from was health care costs and pension.
Right? And so if you compare a contractor or a contracted employee to an in to a government employee, an insourced employee, and you compare the health costs and the pension costs, they're dramatically higher for insource. So by increasing your number of people who work for the government as opposed to contractors, you're compounding the same problem. You were here with us three years ago saying, we can't handle all these other expenses. We need to shift them somewhere else.
And so the reform package did that. But in contrast, then you could continue to hire more people instead of saying, well, we have all these extra costs associated with government