Embracing mediocrity and incompetence at the U.S. postal service

I was at the post office the other day picking up mail from my wife's P.O. box and found that once again, the mailman had delievered a letter addressed to some unknown company, the previous box holder. This has been going on for several years.

It might not seem like a big deal, other than the fact that this post office has left ''official notices' in our box several times invoking''federal law" . If we receive a bill or Christmas card, for example, that has both my wife's and my name on it, the post office claims that federal law prohibits delivery of such mail unless both recipient's names are listed as registrants on the post office box.

The official notices are not particularly menacing, but were irritating enough to me, considering that "Homeland Security" regulations would be touted.  Therefore, I would hold the slugs at the post office accountable to the very "official rules" they purport to enforce.

So I took the letter to the counter and told the clerk that I have received numerous notices admonishing us regarding federal law that the only recipient can be my wife, unless i add my name to that box. So therefore, I asked, why is the post office itself regularly violating the very fed law they tout by carelesssly and repeatedly depositing incorrect mail into the box?

The clerk said  the regular carrier has a few days off a week so the alternate may not know, "but at least they try, at least they try", he parroted in a weird tone several times. He abruptly concluded with the suggestion "keep doing what your'e doing and bring it back to us".

I walked away but then returned to the counter, annoyed at his stupid response. I explained that he had not adequately responded to my question.

'They try' is not an adequate answer. Merely excusing incompetence does not cut it. If it's a "violation of federal law' to deliver the mail to an incorrect recipient, then quit doing it. It's not brain surgery, I said.

He then got his clerk and told me to talk to her. Her eyes glazed over with a look of bewilderment when I mentioned federal law, and I asked them why she doesn't seem to comprehend the very notices she delievers to the boxes. He then began to delve into the minutia about who does what, and I told him that I am not concerned with the intricasies of their operation, that I am the customer, and that I am not going to continuously waste time standing in line to bring back their incorrect mail. "This is my wife's name. If her name is not on the letter, do not deliever it. It's not brain surgery", I said.

The clerk finally agreed that they should only deliever mail that is to the addressee. I felt like an epiphany had been reached by this clueless dolt.

Was it that difficult? They not only relish in incompetence, but are not trained to properly handle customer issues. What else would one expcet from a agency that is a monopoly? James Bovard, in his great book LOST RIGHTS: the Destruction of American Liberty, has a chapter covering the history of the postal service; he outlines how it is a monopoly, and includes reference to a news story in which a little boy and his father in a rural town were prosecuted years ago by the feds after the kid had an idea to deliver Christmas cards for neighbors. This was forbiddedn under postal rules, and they were actually prosecuted criminally for it. The boy had wanted to raise some extra money for Christmas presents for his siblings.

This CNN article from August 2009 claims that the U.S. Postal service is not a government agency , but that they are "exempt from taxes and antitrust law. No one else is allowed to deliver first-class mail". In November '09, it was reported that "The U.S. Postal Service reported a $3.8 billion loss in the 2009 fiscal year" and that they may stop Saturday delivery. The CNN article goes on to outline how the agency has posted a lost  of billions in the last three years and concedes that the USPS is indeed a government agency, (contrary to what the previously linked article claimed), and that it "receives no tax dollars".

If any agency or rep ever invokes federal law, they better be prepared to be held legally accountable for every word they utter and every action they take. High scrutiny.