Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Attention Taxpayers: Despite $15.9 BILLION loss, U.S Postal Service Execs See Boost in Pay.

Posted by on Nov. 17, 2012 at 4:23 PM
  • 19 Replies


Despite nearly $16 billion in annual losses announced by the U.S. Postal Service on Thursday, all but one of the top five executives for the nation's mail service had an overall compensation increase this year, records show.

Unlike past years, when the Postal Service’s politically appointed, bipartisan board of governors awarded executives lucrative deferred compensation deals and incentive bonuses, this year’s compensation increases came mostly in the form of pension plan earnings.

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, for instance, earned a base salary of $276,840, but even without a bonus or incentive payout, his overall compensation came to $512,093, compared with $384,229 in 2011, according to regulatory filings.

Fueling the rise was the fact that his retirement account grew by $186,536. A 37-year employee of the Postal ServiceMr. Donahoe was paid $4.76 per hour during his first job as a postal clerk.

Meanwhile, two other executives — Ellis Burgoyne, chief information officer, and Mary Anne Gibbons, general counsel — also received hefty increases in their retirement plans.

In fact, Mr. Burgoyne’s retirement plan grew by more than $270,000, bringing his total compensation to $510,505, slightly less than Mr. Donahoe‘s.

Compensation for Joseph Corbett, the Postal Service’s chief financial officer, rose from $310,483 in 2011 to $315,841 last year, though he earned more than $330,000 in 2010.

In addition, the Postal Service’s chief human resources officer, Anthony J. Vegilante, received $60,000 in retention bonuses for fiscal 2011 and 2012 on top of his $240,000 annual salary, filings show. Nonetheless, Mr. Vegilante’s overall compensation for 2012 dipped to $363,002, compared with $364,667 the previous year.

A sixth postal executive, acting Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Stephen Masse, was not subject to compensation reporting requirements until this year, and he earned $222,919 overall.


Announcing $15.9 billion in losses for fiscal 2012, postal officials urged Congress to pass legislation that would address a host of issues, including a requirement that the Postal Service pre-fund retiree health care benefits. That mandate alone accounted for about 70 percent of the Postal Service’s net loss for fiscal 2012, officials said.

Read more: Despite $15.9 billion loss, U.S. Postal Service execs see boost in pay - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/us-postal-service-loses-159-billion/?page=2#ixzz2CW4VuxHv 


Should we bail out the post office? 


by on Nov. 17, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
jcrew6
by Silver Member on Nov. 17, 2012 at 4:27 PM
1 mom liked this

Now, some will say "Shhh don't bother the stupid people with facts" about a private company who chooses not to cater to the union, while compensating the higher ups.......  Will they give the Post Office a free pass for being in debt over union pensions, mismanagement, and exec boost in pay?  All while needing a taxpayer funded bailout? 

jcrew6
by Silver Member on Nov. 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Time to close the Post Office?
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
6Fish
by Member on Nov. 17, 2012 at 5:16 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting jcrew6:

Time to close the Post Office?

People who say things like this don't stop to really think about what USPS does, and how things would change if they "went out of business."  USPS delivers to every. single. address. in the US, six days a week.  Really stop and think about that.  My husband is a letter carrier with USPS and his route alone has over 700 addresses a day, and we live in a small town. It doesn't matter if you live in the city or way out in the middle of nowhere, USPS delivers your mail.  FedEx and UPS don't do that, don't have the resources to do that, and would not do that. Those carriers don't even deliver a lot of their own business as it is! Over half of the parcels my husband delivers were originally mailed by the customers with other carrier firms.  The other carriers have found that it's much more cost effective to make a single drop in small towns (at the post office) and let the USPS carriers deliver the mail to the customers. Just because you pay more to ship something with FedEx or UPS doesn't mean that's who'll deliver it. There is no way that FedEx or UPS would ever deliver to every address in every town.  It's just simply not cost effective for a "for-profit" company to even consider such a thing.

The thing that a huge majority of the public doesn't realize is that the postal service is not as "in the red" as Congress would have us all believe.  A bill was passed several years ago, that caused, for no explainable reason, the postal service to be forced to PRE-fund retirement accounts by millions and millions of dollars.  No other government agency is required to do this.  The postal service has all of this money just sitting there that can't be touched for 30 years.  When you hear that the postal service is in the red, it's because the postmaster general has refused to make that payment for the last couple of years. The article you posted says it's this pre-funding that accounts for 70% of the postal service's debt.  When Congress talks about "bailing out" the postal service, all they are saying is that they would rewrite the law so that USPS isn't required to dump all that money into those accounts---which would technically look like a loss to government income; but in reality it's a completely unnecessary payment.  One simple piece of legislation would go a long way toward putting the postal service back in balance.

I can't voice an opinion regarding the salaries of the execs without first comparing them to salaries of execs in similar positions.  I will say the salaries seem execessive, but again, without a comparison, I don't know.

jcrew6
by Silver Member on Nov. 18, 2012 at 9:45 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting 6Fish:


Quoting jcrew6:

Time to close the Post Office?

People who say things like this don't stop to really think about what USPS does, and how things would change if they "went out of business."  USPS delivers to every. single. address. in the US, six days a week.  Really stop and think about that.  My husband is a letter carrier with USPS and his route alone has over 700 addresses a day, and we live in a small town. It doesn't matter if you live in the city or way out in the middle of nowhere, USPS delivers your mail.  FedEx and UPS don't do that, don't have the resources to do that, and would not do that. Those carriers don't even deliver a lot of their own business as it is! Over half of the parcels my husband delivers were originally mailed by the customers with other carrier firms.  The other carriers have found that it's much more cost effective to make a single drop in small towns (at the post office) and let the USPS carriers deliver the mail to the customers. Just because you pay more to ship something with FedEx or UPS doesn't mean that's who'll deliver it. There is no way that FedEx or UPS would ever deliver to every address in every town.  It's just simply not cost effective for a "for-profit" company to even consider such a thing.

The thing that a huge majority of the public doesn't realize is that the postal service is not as "in the red" as Congress would have us all believe.  A bill was passed several years ago, that caused, for no explainable reason, the postal service to be forced to PRE-fund retirement accounts by millions and millions of dollars.  No other government agency is required to do this.  The postal service has all of this money just sitting there that can't be touched for 30 years.  When you hear that the postal service is in the red, it's because the postmaster general has refused to make that payment for the last couple of years. The article you posted says it's this pre-funding that accounts for 70% of the postal service's debt.  When Congress talks about "bailing out" the postal service, all they are saying is that they would rewrite the law so that USPS isn't required to dump all that money into those accounts---which would technically look like a loss to government income; but in reality it's a completely unnecessary payment.  One simple piece of legislation would go a long way toward putting the postal service back in balance.

I can't voice an opinion regarding the salaries of the execs without first comparing them to salaries of execs in similar positions.  I will say the salaries seem execessive, but again, without a comparison, I don't know.

They are government employees execs who are operating a business in the red.  Boosting their pay, while going to congress begging for more money. Who do you begin to compare them with?


jcrew6
by Silver Member on Nov. 18, 2012 at 9:48 PM

And I am aware of what the postal service does.  Their cost to benefit ratio is hurting the prospect of a sustainable government entity.  

Quoting 6Fish:


Quoting jcrew6:

Time to close the Post Office?

People who say things like this don't stop to really think about what USPS does, and how things would change if they "went out of business."  USPS delivers to every. single. address. in the US, six days a week.  Really stop and think about that.  My husband is a letter carrier with USPS and his route alone has over 700 addresses a day, and we live in a small town. It doesn't matter if you live in the city or way out in the middle of nowhere, USPS delivers your mail.  FedEx and UPS don't do that, don't have the resources to do that, and would not do that. Those carriers don't even deliver a lot of their own business as it is! Over half of the parcels my husband delivers were originally mailed by the customers with other carrier firms.  The other carriers have found that it's much more cost effective to make a single drop in small towns (at the post office) and let the USPS carriers deliver the mail to the customers. Just because you pay more to ship something with FedEx or UPS doesn't mean that's who'll deliver it. There is no way that FedEx or UPS would ever deliver to every address in every town.  It's just simply not cost effective for a "for-profit" company to even consider such a thing.

The thing that a huge majority of the public doesn't realize is that the postal service is not as "in the red" as Congress would have us all believe.  A bill was passed several years ago, that caused, for no explainable reason, the postal service to be forced to PRE-fund retirement accounts by millions and millions of dollars.  No other government agency is required to do this.  The postal service has all of this money just sitting there that can't be touched for 30 years.  When you hear that the postal service is in the red, it's because the postmaster general has refused to make that payment for the last couple of years. The article you posted says it's this pre-funding that accounts for 70% of the postal service's debt.  When Congress talks about "bailing out" the postal service, all they are saying is that they would rewrite the law so that USPS isn't required to dump all that money into those accounts---which would technically look like a loss to government income; but in reality it's a completely unnecessary payment.  One simple piece of legislation would go a long way toward putting the postal service back in balance.

I can't voice an opinion regarding the salaries of the execs without first comparing them to salaries of execs in similar positions.  I will say the salaries seem execessive, but again, without a comparison, I don't know.


stringtheory
by Gold Member on Nov. 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM

What does this mean? I'm not sure I'm understanding, is the retirement account growth because of tax-dollar compensation? Federal employees get matching funds for retirement saving plans, but the amount is capped...is this situation different, or did the account just do really well this year? I may be completely missing something...

ETA quote to which I refer:


Quote:

Fueling the rise was the fact that his retirement account grew by $186,536. A 37-year employee of the Postal ServiceMr. Donahoe was paid $4.76 per hour during his first job as a postal clerk.

Carpy
by Ruby Member on Nov. 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Well, they ARE union.

Raintree
by Ruby Member on Nov. 18, 2012 at 9:59 PM
1 mom liked this

In 2006, the post office was mandated to fund retirement benefits 75 years in advance in a ten year period.

After postal service workers overpaid payroll takes to the tune of 54 billion, Darrell Issa legislated against a rightful refund.

The reason the post office is behind 16 billion is BECAUSE of the 2006 legislation.

I don't have a huge problem with a pay increase that isn't in the millions.

jcrew6
by Silver Member on Nov. 18, 2012 at 10:04 PM

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/risks/efficiency-effectiveness/restructuring_postal.php

Although USPS reports $12.5 billion in cost savings since fiscal year 2006, it has not been able to cut costs fast enough to offset the large decline in mail volume and revenue—particularly costs related to its workforce, retail and processing networks, and delivery services.



Quoting Raintree:

In 2006, the post office was mandated to fund retirement benefits 75 years in advance in a ten year period.

After postal service workers overpaid payroll takes to the tune of 54 billion, Darrell Issa legislated against a rightful refund.

The reason the post office is behind 16 billion is BECAUSE of the 2006 legislation.

I don't have a huge problem with a pay increase that isn't in the millions.


Claire-Huxtable
by on Nov. 18, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Doesn't matter. They can do no wrong.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured