# Letter Carriers Refuse to Deliver Mail They Don't Approve Of



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...ced-to-deliver-anti-abortion-flyers-1.3181567

this really falls into the "only in canada" file

a group of letter carriers have refused to deliver anti-abortion pamphlets because they find them to be too graphic and were "horrified" at the content so canadapost has made a deal with the protesters to let them swap routes 

my favorite bit is that the union can't understand why they have to deliver these pamphlets at ALL ... apparently they need a basic lesson in protected political speech and their responsibilities to merely deliver the mail

and people wonder why there is so much antipathy toward public sector unions ... the confusion and arrogance of the postal workers union boggles the mind ... beware the facism of the left


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Only in Canada you say? Bloomin' Pity


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Frankly, for me, I have no use for more junk mail & don't need to be exposed to pictures of dead fetuses.
It's in the very least a waste of trees.

In the modern world, people are expected to do the right thing, even if they disobey orders.
In the military you will be charged if you commit war crimes, even if you were only obeying orders, same can of worms, different story.. imho


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Hardly fascism of the left. Don't you remember the wedding officiants who said they didn't want to marry same-sex couples? As an almost life-long public servant, I say that if you're going to be a public servant, you serve the public, whether you like them or not.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I'm sure if it was porn advertisements then fatcat would change his tune (perhaps not - freaky deakies need love too)


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

From what I heard on As It happens, it was unsolicited, "homeowner" mail; not identified on the outside as being about abortion policy; and was labeled on the outside as "Important Election Information". Some people receiving this could be quite upset by it. 

Canada Post is an awkward position, because the present Postal regulations only prohibit material of a "pornographic" nature. I am pleased they worked out a temporary solution with this one group of mail carriers. But if the regulations are not broadened, then the next thing you know anti-vivisectionists will be doing mass mailings of autopsy photos.

The Criminal Code, on the other hand, uses the more general term "obscene", as in :
_168. (1) Every one commits an offence who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering anything that is obscene, indecent, immoral or scurrilous._

I believe case law over the years has tended to limit "obscene" to material of a sexual or pornographic nature. But obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. And the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (the Pro-Life Lobby Group distributing these pamphlets) might find itself in the awkward position of trying to argue that photos of aborted fetuses are not obscene, considering that the practice of abortion is so repugnant to them.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

mrPPincer said:


> Frankly, for me, I have no use for more junk mail & don't need to be exposed to pictures of dead fetuses.
> It's in the very least a waste of trees.
> 
> In the modern world, people are expected to do the right thing, even if they disobey orders.
> In the military you will be charged if you commit war crimes, even if you were only obeying orders, same can of worms, different story.. imho


the logical conclusion of your argument then is that postal workers should not have to deliver mail they find to be objectionable

so a postie who is a member of peta shouldn't have to deliver advertisements or material for anything that involves meat or material that displays dead animals for example, hunting magazines could be objected to

other postal workers who are ardent environmentalists might refuse to deliver the annual reports of the oil companies

posties who are conservative christians might want to refuse to deliver anything from planned parenthood or feminist magazines that talk about birth control or abortion

if we are now going to hold up a standard that people might be "upset" by receiving certain kinds of material then we will turn public discourse into pablum

the recipient of such an anti-abortion pamphlet need merely toss it in the trash and be done with it ... they live in the modern world and are daily exposed to to upsetting and awful things .. too bad

do we implement another star chamber ala the "human rights commission" and they decide behind closed doors what might be upsetting ... is that it ?

what if someone comes in to a library and asks for materials about birth control and the librarian is a conservative catholic, should she be allowed to deny the patron the right to such material or lie to her or mislead her because she finds birth-control objectionable

where does it end ?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> *I believe case law over the years has tended to limit "obscene" to material of a sexual or pornographic nature. * But obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. And the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (the Pro-Life Lobby Group distributing these pamphlets) might find itself in the awkward position of trying to argue that photos of aborted fetuses are not obscene, considering that the practice of abortion is so repugnant to them.


there is a reason they find thusly ... because of the very point you make, we all define obscenity differently

thus we should use the lightest touch possibly or we will all be banning each others stuff

the arrogance of the posties is frightening and i find them obscene and actually quite fascistic and frightening

should i be able to ban them from delivering my mail if they upset me ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think this small group of posties, and the measured response by the Canada Post served as a public service that revealed a short coming in the law that can now be addressed.

The question may rather be.........not be what posties are required to deliver.......but what consumers are forced to accept in their mailbox.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> I think this small group of posties, and the measured response by the Canada Post served as a public service that revealed a short coming in the law that can now be addressed.


what is the shortcoming and how can it be addressed ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There are already laws that restrict certain types of obscenity, regardless of the opinion of those who send or receive such material.

Sending graphic images of abortions could simply be added to the list.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> There are already laws that restrict certain types of obscenity, regardless of the opinion of those who send or receive such material.
> 
> Sending graphic images of abortions could simply be added to the list.


alright, so do i understand correctly that is the graphic nature of "disturbing images" that you find offensive ?

what about hunting magazines ? 
what about when PETA sends out material that pictures graphic images of animals being mistreated on factory farms ?
what about when the spca sends out graphic images of animals being mistreated ?
what about non-profits that send out material featuring graphic images of starving and dying children in africa ?

should all of these be banned on the grounds of obscenity due to their disturbing and graphic nature ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If people want to get that type of mail, they can "opt in" and the mail can be sent in clearly marked packages from the sender.

The issue is sending unsolicited mail to people that contains graphic images, hidden within a falsely identified envelope.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> If people want to get that type of mail, they can "opt in" and the mail can be sent in clearly marked packages from the sender.
> 
> The issue would be sending unsolicited mail to people that contains graphic images.


how do we define whether an image is graphic or not ?

what is the standard ?

how do we know what is graphic and what isn't graphic ?

who determines beforehand what can and can't be sent out ?

what about my right and others right to receive images that others might find offensive ?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I think fatcat is a pro-lifer. No use talking to those delusional fools even if legalized abortion results in a much more happy society.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pornography is hard to define..........graphic and disturbing is not.

The Criminal Code already contains may references to "knew or should have known" decisions in judgement by defendants.

Is the photo graphic is pretty easy to define. Simply don't send them, unless they are solicited by the recipients.

If the senders lack the common sense to make such a determination perhaps they should find new work, or face spending time in a jail cell while they figure it out.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am a pro-life supporter myself, and as the adoptive parent of a son and a proud grandparent of a grandson, both of whose lives were perilously close to have been ended in an abortion, I believe a solution is to reduce the number of abortions by providing much more financial and emotional support for young mothers to be.

There is barely a day goes by, that I am not thankful for the decision of both young mothers to give their babies a chance at life.

Abortion is often the solution of last resort for them, and as a society we can provide them with a better choice.

But at the end of the day...........it is their choice, even though I may disagree and am saddened by it.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> Pornography is hard to define..........graphic and disturbing is not.
> 
> The Criminal Code already contains may references to "knew or should have known" decisions in judgement by defendants.
> 
> ...


but the issue really has little to do with abortion or being pro-life or pro-choice

the issue is what is or isn't protected political speech ?

let me go back to one of the points i made upthread ... many charitable groups send solicitations in the mail that have graphic images of african children starving, with distended bellies, covered with flies and so on ... organizations like the christian children's fund and so on

so you think they should face jail time for sending out these images which are graphic and disturbing ?

do i have that right ?

how are organizations to know *what* is graphic and disturbing ?

canadapost has long had the policy of allowing people to opt out of unsolicited mail, i see no problem with that because it is all mail and doesn't create a problem of canadapost or much worse, the postal worker deciding what is or isn't graphically offensive

you are comfortable with a postal worker deciding what mail you can get and what mail you can't get ?


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

> canadapost has long had the policy of allowing people to opt out of unsolicited mail, i see no problem with that because it is all mail and doesn't create a problem of canadapost or much worse, the postal worker deciding what is or isn't graphically offensive


This is an interesting nuance you bring up fatcat. I happen to be one that has opted out of unsolicited mail, but even so Canada Post is still required to deliver the political mail.

So in your view should any special-interest fringe group now be able to get around my wishes to not receive junk mail by simply labeling it all political?
Where it end? :rugby:


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

mrPPincer said:


> Only in Canada you say? Bloomin' Pity


 ... :encouragement: 

CP=CANNOT POST = one scrxwed up corp. or will that be corpse soon?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

It is up to the Postmaster to decide what can be sent by mail and what cannot, in accord with laws and regulations passed by Parliament. The letter carriers are there to deliver the mail, not to criticize it.

If an employee says " my conscience will not allow me to deliver this mail" the proper response is "I understand completely. I accept your resignation. No one will force you to do a job against your will".

Anyone with that delicate a conscience, could not accept pay for a job unless they do the job.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

mrPPincer said:


> This is an interesting nuance you bring up fatcat. I happen to be one that has opted out of unsolicited mail, but even so Canada Post is still required to deliver the political mail.
> 
> So in your view should any special-interest fringe group now be able to get around my wishes to not receive junk mail by simply labeling it all political?
> Where it end? :rugby:


i can't find the regs but assume there is some kind of standard that allows one to mail under the rubric "political mail"

this mailing was an attack on justin trudeau for his abortion views, that certainly qualifies, as would an attack on harper for his abortion views

the issue is whether we need to implement a censorship regime and all that brings with it merely to avoid upsetting people

graphic picture of abortions are going to alienate as many people as they convince, they will anger and disgust people so it isn't a useful or widely used tactic

rusty down thread has it right, the postmaster should set the rules and the carriers should either carry them out of find other work, any other system brings immense problems

we accord ourselves rights under the charter and that should include being able to send and receive the widest variety of material regardless of content ... we should censor the smallest amount of content possible

make no mistake, sitting around trying to determine what is or isn't graphic and thus what can or can't be mailed is censorship


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This particular mail was deceitful, as it was posing as important election information. 

Abortion isn't an election issue, and none of the parties are advocating for any change in the law.

I suppose one way to stop this type of activity is to sue the sender in small claims court. 

In Ontario, I believe the maximum award is $25,000.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Can't say I disagree actually, but as sags said upthread, Canada Post did take a measured response to the problem. 
They took a balanced approach, in typical Canadian fashion I might add, and everybody leaves happy, the workers made their statement, people are aware of the issue, and the mail got delivered, win/win.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> This particular mail was deceitful, as it was posing as important election information.
> 
> Abortion isn't an election issue, and none of the parties are advocating for any change in the law.
> 
> ...


say what ? ... abortion isn't an election issue ? ... 

have you been reading the paper for the last 50 years ?

it sure is to a not-insignificant minority

all kinds of people vote for or against candidates based on their (the candidates) beliefs about abortion both pro or con

women's groups regularly target anti-abortion politicans and pro-life groups regularly target pro-choice politicians like trudeau

this is protected speech and should remain so which means posties should be required to deliver the mail ... period



> Can't say I disagree actually, but as sags said upthread, Canada Post did take a measured response to the problem.
> They took a balanced approach, in typical Canadian fashion I might add, and everybody leaves happy, the workers made their statement, people are aware of the issue, and the mail got delivered, win/win.


as long as it doesn't set a precedent, which of course it does 

we'll see what the posties don't want to deliver next :-(


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Canada Post's own policy on non-mailable matter states:

_2 Criminal Code and Other Offences
Any person using the mail for the delivery of any one of the following items commits an offence:
- articles that are obscene, indecent, immoral or scurrilous_

What we had here was a disagreement on what constitutes "obscene, indecent, immoral or scurrilous". According to the AIH interview, the letter carrier who first refused to deliver the material under discussion was temporarily suspended, with a warning that it could lead to dismissal. It appears that enough of her colleagues, and perhaps the reaction of members of the public, persuaded management that they needed to re-think their interpretation.


----------



## DennyO (Aug 7, 2015)

As a former Canada Post manager, let me clarify some details.

First off the general rule against obscene, pornographic or scurrilous material is for all intent and purposes not enforced. An example is that magazines like Penthouse use the mail to delivery their copies, but they are enveloped. I do not believe anyone if the postal system at the receiving end opens or checks what is inside the envelopes on deposit. 

One can opt out of unaddressed mail delivery, the form used for the flyer in question. The "political" unaddressed mail is an exception, all points of delivery get those. But it is only for use by MP's, and most posties know these all too well, as they are not as well prepared as others, and their distribution follows riding boundaries, not route boundaries, so they are a nuisance to work in the depots.

As these items were enveloped, there is no fair or logical reason for the carrier to refuse to handle them. She apparently is thinking she is doing a community service, but not really, as the work was just transferred to other carriers. The compromise only worked as this was a fractional, not a full, unaddressed admailing. It would not be practically possible to swap parts of routes in the event of a full one.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

DennyO said:


> As a former Canada Post manager, let me clarify some details.
> 
> First off the general rule against obscene, pornographic or scurrilous material is for all intent and purposes not enforced. An example is that magazines like Penthouse use the mail to delivery their copies, but they are enveloped. I do not believe anyone if the postal system at the receiving end opens or checks what is inside the envelopes on deposit.
> 
> ...


this strikes me as a time tested and well trod set of protocols

we let a lot material pass because the implementation of laws to control obscenity through the mail would be a bureaucratic and political nightmare with endless groups claiming their material wasn't obscene but the other guys are smut peddlers

the solution is simple: if you are going to be offended by graphic images, opt out of junk and don't open your political mail 

as long as canadapost guarantees mail will be delivered, if they want to go through the hassles of changing routes, fine, but as you point out this will quickly become a nightmare and very hard to manage


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Is this a free country or isn't it? If it is, then deliver the mail. If it is a dictatorship then of course the government has the right to control your thoughts, opinions, what you see and hear.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Mail that recruits members for ISIS some letter carriers might not approve of should that mail be delivered ?

What about mail that targets poor old Grandma by con artists after Grandmas money should postal workers be forced to deliver this type of mail ?

There probably should be rules of what can be delivered by mail. The problem is where to draw the line.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

lonewolf said:


> Mail that recruits members for ISIS some letter carriers might not approve of should that mail be delivered ?
> 
> What about mail that targets poor old Grandma by con artists after Grandmas money should postal workers be forced to deliver this type of mail ?
> 
> There probably should be rules of what can be delivered by mail. The problem is where to draw the line.


of course ... drawing the line is very difficult which is why in a culture that values honest and open dialogue you err on the side of offending people sensibilities

we wouldn't need a charter of rights if we all censored our speech beforehand as some here want us to do


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Canada Post's own policy on non-mailable matter states:
> 
> _2 Criminal Code and Other Offences
> Any person using the mail for the delivery of any one of the following items commits an offence:
> ...


The stuff I get from my MP is immoral and often scurrilous, good thing there's that political exception.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

lonewolf said:


> Mail that recruits members for ISIS some letter carriers might not approve of should that mail be delivered ?
> 
> What about mail that targets poor old Grandma by con artists after Grandmas money should postal workers be forced to deliver this type of mail ?
> 
> There probably should be rules of what can be delivered by mail. The problem is where to draw the line.


And how are they supposed to know what is in your letters, unless they open and read them? Are you suggesting YOUR mail should be censored? Or just mine?

All the mail should be delivered. 

It is not up to the post office to act as censors, judges, or police officers. They SHOULD report suspicious activities to the police but the mail service is the mail service, not a spy organization for regimenting serfs.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> And how are they supposed to know what is in your letters, unless they open and read them? Are you suggesting YOUR mail should be censored? Or just mine?
> 
> All the mail should be delivered.
> 
> It is not up to the post office to act as censors, judges, or police officers. They SHOULD report suspicious activities to the police but the mail service is the mail service, not a spy organization for regimenting serfs.


 Rusty some excellent points


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I believe using the mails to defraud or commit crime is a punishable offense now. We do not need additional laws, spies or censors.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

the notion that we should stop delivering mail simply because it is offensive opens up pandora's box to all kinds of political machinations and abuse and will infringe on all our speech

they made the wrong move with this letter carrier, she needs to put her own sensibilities aside and do her job which is to deliver anything that meets the postmasters pre-defined rules and regulations ... canadapost did the wrong thing by compromising

i mostly like the service i get from our posties but as far as i am concerned i would happy to see it privatized and lets get competition from all the delivery companies

yet another reason not to vote for the ndp or libs, they both want to bring back door-to-door mail, a money losing, wasted expense which we will all pay for


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

This issue will resolve itself because letter carriers are going the way of the dodo. And a happy day it will be.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

CPA Candidate said:


> This issue will resolve itself because letter carriers are going the way of the dodo. And a happy day it will be.


not if the ndp forms a government :biggrin:

they are aligned, not surprisingly, with the postal workers union all the way and want to bring back door-to-door delivery which is clearly a money loser and an artifact of a time that is now gone by ... 

this is typical of this party, they want to us to maintain a money losing, no longer necessary protocol for mail delivery simply to support the union ... and we all pay for it


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals said they would also retain door to door delivery.

The only party that wants to eliminate it is the Harper government, and they just fell to third place in the latest polls.

A whole bunch of small issues, have built into a crescendo of discontent for the Harper government.

It is really quite interesting to watch the skill the Conservatives have employed at removing themselves from power.

There must be some bright bulbs in the PMO saying.........."I know..........let's piss everyone off..............that should work".


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

sags said:


> The Liberals said they would also retain door to door delivery.
> 
> The only party that wants to eliminate it is the Harper government, and they just fell to third place in the latest polls.
> ....


I am disappointed that both the Liberals and NDP have promised to retain door to door delivery, while neither has said how they are going to pay for it.

As much as I have no use for the Harper government, this wasn't their decision. I am sure they don't "want" to eliminate door to door delivery, but they also don't "want" to go back to paying the Post Office a large taxpayer subsidy for uneconomical services. Canada Post was created as a Crown Corporation to get it out of the taxpayers' pockets, and to put an end to postal services being election-time footballs.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

home mail delivery would continue to work if they'd cut to once or twice a week.

does anyone receive anything urgent by snail mail these days, anyhow?

here in my neighbourhood we've been getting twice a week mail delivery for many years. There'll be no mail for days, then suddenly 22 pieces in one day, then nothing for the next 3 days. This practice is saving the mailman a lot of steps. They (the mailmen) seem to rotate among the houses, so it doesn't happen that an entire street block gets neglected. Today i might be the one who receives mail but my neighbours on either side will receive nothing until the day after tomorrow.

what it boils down to is that, each day, an individual postman only has to run up the sidewalks & steps to the front doors at one-third of the addresses on his route.

what's comical is that this practice is against the rules, but it must be happening that Canada Post management knows all about it. After all, sorted mail not taken out for delivery the same day must get left overnight - or a couple of days - in the sorting cubbyholes in the postal sorting depots, so it stands to reason that the supervisors do see all this happening.

another rule the mailmen constantly break is the business of renting delivery routes to each other. My usual mail delivery time is around 6 pm. In the wintertime, mail is delivered after dark. This is not normal at all. To do the regular mailman justice, mail does occasionally get delivered in the morning, which is how i know that a "regular" mailman even exists for my route.

i imagine it's easy to rent a postal delivery route from a buddy & i imagine it's also easy to work a double route when both routes mean only delivering to one-third of the prescribed street addresses.

what Canada Post could do is formalize all this in order to cut costs. Customers could receive mail at a street address once a week. I imagine that a system could be developed whereby customers could pay for more frequent delivery.

the physical infrastructure is already built. The corporation wouldn't have to pay for building any more community mail kiosks, not to speak of saving the legal costs to fight the lawsuits now building up from inner-city mayors with no land available on which to build those kiosks.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Eliminating home delivery will cost Canadian taxpayers more than they will save.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/math-of-ending-canada-post-home-delivery-doesnt-add-up

Add in the cost of gas for people to drive to the community mailbox, the cost of picking up the inevitable litter that will surround the mailboxes, the cost of maintaining the community mailbox in the winter.

The Harper government just signed the CEO of Canada Post to a $2,500,000 contract for 5 years. They appear quite happy with his plans.

They renewed it early so he could collect a substantial severance package if the NDP or Liberals win the election and remove him from his job.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/canada-post-president-gets-new-500k-contract

Canadians aren't happy about eliminating home delivery though............and it is a big issue facing local MP candidates.

Nobody wants a community mailbox in front of their house, with the traffic it would bring.

Seniors and the disabled would be the most severely impacted, accessing their mail in the winter months.

Canada Post is profitable, and for the most part always has been.

It would appear poor target selection by the Conservatives for cost reduction.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sorry but that's not how I read the oc article. It points out that it is the Crown Corp targeting the cost reductions - not the Cons. Certainly they support it though. It also notes the continuing challenges that Canada Post faces, including a $7B shortfall in their pension obligations. This in a corp where 23% of the current workforce is expected to be retiring in the next 5yrs (but guess who is ultimately on the hook for that ).
I don't see the oc saying that moving the remaining 1/3 of us to community boxes will do anything but save money. We expect to lose our home delivery, but we honestly get very little paid/addressed mail anymore.
I do have to say that I think Canada Post has done a very poor job working with communities/cities/towns in locating the boxes. And the 'survey' that they included with our notice was a total joke, designed to self-fulfil locating wherever they want.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> It would appear poor target selection by the Conservatives for cost reduction.


really ? 

canadapost faces: 


massive reductions in mail volume, 
serious and growing competition in package delivery
a pension shortfall of 7-billion dollars
but you want to us to pour more money into it instead of saving where and when we can ?

canadapost strikes me as a target-rich environment beginning with employment costs and proceeding on from there


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Taxpayers pouring money into Canada Post ?

Canada Post made a $194 million dollar profit in 2014, and earned a $22 million dollar profit in the first quarter of 2015.

They have made a profit in almost every year of existence, which has flowed to the government.

There is no crisis at Canada Post..........just the Harper government trying to create one.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> Taxpayers pouring money into Canada Post ?
> 
> Canada Post made a $194 million dollar profit in 2014, and earned a $22 million dollar profit in the first quarter of 2015.
> 
> ...


it has a 7-billion dollar pension shortfall and is carrying workers under ridiculous contracts that it simply can't afford

take a look around, people don't mail things anymore and canadapost is up against 2 major and many more minor package delivery companies

there are people actually making a good living driving mail across the border to the usa in order to mail it back in to canada because canadapost rates are so unaffordable (and the main reason rates are unaffordable is the high cost of labor)

what else do you need to know ?

put plainly, postal workers are just too expensive and the business is effectively a dodo bird


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

fatcat said:


> there are people actually making a good living driving mail across the border to the usa in order to mail it back in to canada because canadapost rates are so unaffordable (and the main reason rates are unaffordable is the high cost of labor)


I think the reasons are more complicated than that. If Canada Post is so expensive, how come private companies like UPS and Fedex haven't offered a cheaper alternative?

The US postal service is so cheap because it's heavily subsidized by taxpayers unlike Canada Post. http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

nathan79 said:


> I think the reasons are more complicated than that. If Canada Post is so expensive, how come private companies like UPS and Fedex haven't offered a cheaper alternative?
> 
> The US postal service is so cheap because it's heavily subsidized by taxpayers unlike Canada Post. http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/


i sell small stuff on eBay from time to time canadapost is so expensive that I can't really even sell certain kinds of items since canadapost has so many ridiculous rules above package sizing and weights

i'm all for subsidizing so it's more affordable for all of us but the way to do that first and foremost is by cutting costs and eliminating inefficiencies like 5 day a week home delivery to every single family home in the country as well as beginning to cut back on labor costs via pensions, salaries and benefits


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

fatcat said:


> it has a 7-billion dollar pension shortfall and is carrying workers under ridiculous contracts that it simply can't afford


Up until last year, Canada Post pension plan had _both_ a solvency deficit _and_ a current deficit.
That had nothing to do with plan management (i.e. investment returns), but more to do with outrageously generous promises made to current retirees and near-retirees, and not enough new workers being hired every year to keep the Ponzi going.

Then, late last year (or maybe earlier this year), the pension plan changed some assumptions and calculations and the deficits magically disappeared.
Many public sector pension plans are doing the same these days (i.e. changing discount rate, loss amortization, and other assumptions) to hide deficits.

Anyhow, it is easy for any corporation to report "profits" if their biggest liabilities are not included.
For CP, that liability is the pension plan (and other generous post-retirement benefits).
Fortunately for them, the full might of the Canadian taxpayers and the federal govt is standing behind them to backstop and bail out the pension plan, if/when needed.
So no wonder they are reporting "profits".


----------

