Louis DeJoy, head of the Postal Service, is resigning after significant losses of $9.5 billion in 2024 and $6.5 billion in 2023. Despite an 80% drop in mail volume, USPS added 190,000 employees. Senator Rand Paul questions the logic behind this increase in staffing amid declining business.
π Post Text
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
NEW: Head of the Postal Service, Louis Dejoy is stepping down after losing $9.5 BILLION in 2024. In 2023 he lost $6.5 BILLION
π¨ USPS has seen a 80% DECREASE in volume of mail but ADDED 190,000 employees
Senator Rand Paul βCan 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?β
βYou've insourced 190,000 jobs, and it's just sort of inexplicableβ
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm addressing concerns about the Postal Service operating like a private business while facing declining first-class mail volume. Despite this, employee numbers have increased, which seems counterintuitive in a declining business.
The issue isn't about changing the laws governing the Postal Service but trying to fix the current situation. There is also concern about shifting costs rather than true reform, especially regarding healthcare and pension expenses. Insourcing jobs increase these costs compared to using contractors. While the reform package aimed to alleviate these expenses, the decision to hire more government employees exacerbates the problem. It would make more sense to hire contractors to avoid these government labor-associated costs.
Speaker 0: 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
Speaker 0: the hiring aspects. I know no one in in private practice or investors who, you 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, 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 costs on your books, and 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 labor. Why don't we hire labor outside of the government and use contractors?
Speaker 1: So, in in isolation on one element
