Do I have the right to refuse junk mail?
Spacey Spade
junk mail when the mailman came to my mailbox, when he was at the next
door neighbor's mailbox. I told him I didn't want it, and he said I
could throw it away. Instead I put it in his vehicle. He backed up
to put the junk mail in my mailbox, but I stood in front of the
mailbox. He put it at my feet and drove off.
508 Recipient Services
1.1.2 Refusal at Delivery
The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for
delivery.
1.1.3 Refusal After Delivery
After delivery, an addressee may mark a mailpiece "Refused" and return
it within a reasonable time, if the piece or any attachment is not
opened. Mail that may not be refused and returned unopened under this
provision may be returned to the sender only if it is enclosed in a
new envelope or wrapper with a correct address and new postage. The
following may not be refused and returned postage-free after delivery:
a. Pieces sent as Registered Mail, insured, Certified Mail, collect on
delivery (COD), and return receipt for merchandise.
b. Response mail to the addressee's sales promotion, solicitation,
announcement, or other advertisement that was not refused when offered
to the addressee.
Adam H. Kerman
>I have the section below taped to my mailbox. I recently refused some
>junk mail when the mailman came to my mailbox, when he was at the next
>door neighbor's mailbox. I told him I didn't want it, and he said I
>could throw it away. Instead I put it in his vehicle. He backed up
>to put the junk mail in my mailbox, but I stood in front of the
>mailbox. He put it at my feet and drove off.
Were the two of you planning to come to blows?
Yes, you can refuse mail. As he had already delivered it, you were
obliged to write "Refused" across the address label per the standard
that you quoted.
No, you do not have the right to put anything in his vehicle. No, you
do not have the right to provoke your letter carrier.
What could possibly motivate you to do this? You need your letter
carrier as an ally.
You owe the guy an apology.
Long Gone
news:4t6dnaGpF8gZZqjV...@comcast.com...
Adam, you are totally correct. OTOH, the carrier should have just taken it
back, tossed in his waste mail bucket and continued on the route.
I see no point in the customer taping the regulation on his mail receptacle.
As you say, he has to indicate the refusal on the mail piece before giving
it to the carrier or putting it in his mail receptacle as outgoing mail.
And, if described accurately, the carrier violated safety by backing up
which should never be done.
Robert DeSavage
wrote:
>Spacey Spade <spac...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>I have the section below taped to my mailbox. I recently refused some
>>junk mail when the mailman came to my mailbox, when he was at the next
>>door neighbor's mailbox. I told him I didn't want it, and he said I
>>could throw it away. Instead I put it in his vehicle. He backed up
>>to put the junk mail in my mailbox, but I stood in front of the
>>mailbox. He put it at my feet and drove off.
>
>Were the two of you planning to come to blows?
>
>Yes, you can refuse mail. As he had already delivered it, you were
>obliged to write "Refused" across the address label per the standard
>that you quoted.
>
>No, you do not have the right to put anything in his vehicle. No, you
>do not have the right to provoke your letter carrier
Good points, Adam! If Spacey is so inclined to tape postal regulations
on his mailbox, perhaps what you suggested should be taped, stapled,
nailed, riveted, or welded to Spacey's forehead.
Meanwhile, after a quick GOOGLE, I might suggest that Spacey checks
out this site for ways to reduce the so called 'junk mail'.
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs4-junk.htm
Like it's been mentioned a zillion times before; but for sure, a
customer can tell the carrier not to deliver it until he / she is blue
in the face. However, the carrier can not arbitrarily discard mail of
any kind and must deliver it as addressed where it's the customer's
problem on how to deal with it in accordance to the above suggestions.
>
>What could possibly motivate you to do this? You need your letter
>carrier as an ally.
>
>You owe the guy an apology.
...and maybe an explanation to Homeland Security and / or the
Inspection Service for what may be a violation of the sanctity and
security of the carrier's safety and vehicle.
Spacey Spade
> Spacey Spade <spacey...@hotpop.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, you can refuse mail. As he had already delivered it, you were
> obliged to write "Refused" across the address label per the standard
> that you quoted.
"The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for
delivery."
Says nothing about writing "refused"
"After delivery, an addressee may mark a mailpiece "Refused" and
return
it within a reasonable time, if the piece or any attachment is not
opened"
The flag on the mailbox was up. I had some previous days' mail in the
mailbox wrapped with a band around it. The band says in big letters
"R E F U S E D". Postman drove off, so I went up to him and told him
I was refusing this mail, and he didn't take it then. That's when I
tossed it in into a basket next to him in the vehicle. I don't think
this mailman cares too much about the postal code. I don't think the
post office cares too much about the postal code, since I've called
and they will not admit that I can refuse mail.
We both acted inappropriately, however, I'm so fed up with it that I
wouldn't mind a good fist fight. They treated a friend of mine that
is pro-environment the same way, and that got me to put the postal
code on my mail box.
Robert DeSavage
<spac...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>On May 22, 6:02 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Spacey Spade <spacey...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> Yes, you can refuse mail. As he had already delivered it, you were
>> obliged to write "Refused" across the address label per the standard
>> that you quoted.
>
>"The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for
>delivery."
>
>Says nothing about writing "refused"
>
>"After delivery, an addressee may mark a mailpiece "Refused" and
>return
>it within a reasonable time, if the piece or any attachment is not
>opened"
>
>The flag on the mailbox was up. I had some previous days' mail in the
>mailbox wrapped with a band around it. The band says in big letters
>"R E F U S E D".
That's where you were mistaken. EACH piece has to be endorsed as such
by your own hand. While it may be horse shit, it does relieve the
carrier of possible culpability since despite the fact an article is
of no obvious value, the mail is not his or her property to dispose
of. The USPS can be sticklers where it's not uncommon for the
supervisor or worse - a postal inspector taking part in an office
'audit' - to peruse each discarded article for such customer
endorsement that's placed in a centralized N.O.V. container. Not only
do these people check for that reason, but also to make sure that
regular mail isn't mistakenly placed in the same container. You might
not believe it, but carriers have gotten into trouble for complying
with a customer's request that all junk mail is to be discarded and
later is turned in by the customer for tossing something the customer
didn't want tossed. Unfortunately, carriers are not mind readers to
know what the customer doesn't want or might actually want. And sad
but true that customers can sometimes be nasty people who live to get
others in trouble and use the event to set-up the carrier.. When I was
a carrier, on rare occasions I've had similar instances of a customer
doing the same thing you did. While SOME supes might say let it go, a
supervisor who is properly doing his / her job will tell the carrier
to redeliver the unendorsed articles on the next delivery day. Like
yourself, I'm inundated with so called junk mail that I simply toss in
the trash can. But often, I do receive junk mail that offers money
saving coupons and promotions where I want to be in total control of
what I might want to toss or keep.
>
>We both acted inappropriately, however, I'm so fed up with it that I
>wouldn't mind a good fist fight. They treated a friend of mine that
>is pro-environment the same way, and that got me to put the postal
>code on my mail box.
Yes, it might piss you off. But resorting to a good fist fight because
of junk mail??????? That unto itself is a Federal offense if you took
a swing at a postal employee. And if it wasn't an offense, it might be
a fist fight that you lose in view of the fact the carrier might get
just as pissed off when being challenged for properly doing his / her
job. Beware especially those carriers of the female genre. Depending
on what time of the month it is, if you pick a fight on a day the lady
is delivering her appointed rounds accompanied with her 'friend', that
might not be a cool thing to do. 8-)
Long Gone
news:46433ccc-748f-4ab5...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
(clip)
We both acted inappropriately, however, I'm so fed up with it that I
wouldn't mind a good fist fight. They treated a friend of mine that
is pro-environment the same way, and that got me to put the postal
code on my mail box.
You might consider it money better spent if you took an anger management
class. Assault and/or battery of a postal employee on duty is a federal
offense punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or some jail time. Is all
that worth it? Seems like putting the unwanted mail in your own trash would
be a far simpler solution.
As for your pro-environment friend, refusing the mail does not eliminate the
mail piece. It only changes the final place of disposition.
Adam H. Kerman
>>Yes, you can refuse mail. As he had already delivered it, you were
>>obliged to write "Refused" across the address label per the standard
>>that you quoted.
>"The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for
>delivery."
>Says nothing about writing "refused"
>"After delivery, an addressee may mark a mailpiece "Refused" and
>return it within a reasonable time, if the piece or any attachment is
>not opened"
You just quoted the standard requiring you to write "Refused" on the
address label for mail delivered to you that you have chosen to refuse.
Once placed in your mailbox, your mail has been delivered. If you then
choose to refuse it, you MUST mark it refused, then return it within a
reasonable time.
I encountered a similar situation a month back. I ordered merchandise on
line, then learned that despite what the Web site and my confirmation
email message said, the item would be mailed instead of shipped as promised.
As I needed the item by a specific time, I didn't want to wait for it to
arrive in the mail, particularly since the customer support clerk
couldn't tell me what class of mail was used. As it happened, I was home
on the day the carrier dropped the item off. Now, I refused the item.
The carrier considered it to be delivered once she left it on the
doorstep, so she told me to write "Refused" on the label. I didn't have
a marker on me, but she waited for me to find one.
I managed to deal with the situation without threatening violence; sheesh.
Certain accountable mail requires a signature. That mail is not placed
in the box. If you refuse to sign for it (or pay postage due when
postage was short paid), only then would the carrier write Refused on
the label and not you. Such mail was never in your possession, so you
don't write "refused".
>The flag on the mailbox was up. I had some previous days' mail in the
>mailbox wrapped with a band around it. The band says in big letters
>"R E F U S E D".
That's nonstandard.
>Postman drove off, so I went up to him and told him I was refusing this
>mail, and he didn't take it then.
Unfortunately for you, the carrier decided to be as uncooperative as
possible while still going by the book. He should have instructed you
how to refuse the mail correctly by writing "Refused" on the address
label of each piece, and then he should have accepted the mail. The
carrier himself MUST NOT write "Refused" on the mail if the addressee
won't do so. I agree that he was behaving badly by not telling you what
you needed to know, but none of that justified your subsequent actions.
>That's when I tossed it in into a basket next to him in the vehicle.
That you should not have done.
>We both acted inappropriately, however, I'm so fed up with it that I
>wouldn't mind a good fist fight. They treated a friend of mine that
>is pro-environment the same way, and that got me to put the postal
>code on my mail box.
Letter carriers do not produce unwanted mail, so taking your anger out
on your carrier is immoral. Do you fail to see the hypocrisy?
The carrier MUST deliver pre-paid mail as address. That is the standard.
The carrier MUST NOT assume that the addressee wouldn't want to receive
would likely refuse specific pieces of mail.
As far as the environmental issue, you're ignoring extra transportation
and handling costs to force the post office to dispose of it rather than
you. Just dispose of mail with your own paper recyclables. Raising the
cost of handling garbage sure as hell is not environmentally friendly in
any way. So tell your friend to stop harrassing his own carrier.
Spacey Spade
> As for your pro-environment friend, refusing the mail does not eliminate the
> mail piece. It only changes the final place of disposition.
What happens if more people start refusing email? What happens if it
becomes a choice to receive or not receive bulk mail. Post office
starts losing money due to fall in bulk mail revenue. That's the real
reason behind the resistance.
Adam H. Kerman
>On May 23, 6:38 am, "Long Gone" <noth...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>>As for your pro-environment friend, refusing the mail does not eliminate the
>>mail piece. It only changes the final place of disposition.
>What happens if more people start refusing email?
More people would be committing minor harm to the environment by adding
costs to disposal of garbage, both transportation and handling expenses
and pollution associated with transporting the garbage from your mailbox
back to the post office.
>What happens if it becomes a choice to receive or not receive bulk mail.
>Post office starts losing money due to fall in bulk mail revenue.
>That's the real reason behind the resistance.
You're admitting that concern for the environment isn't the real reason.
Long Gone
news:NsydnXrhG8oIRqvV...@comcast.com...
(clip)
> As far as the environmental issue, you're ignoring extra transportation
> and handling costs to force the post office to dispose of it rather than
> you. Just dispose of mail with your own paper recyclables. Raising the
> cost of handling garbage sure as hell is not environmentally friendly in
> any way. So tell your friend to stop harrassing his own carrier.
That could be comparing apples and oranges. Many offices now have contracts
where they are paid for waste paper. In that case, the post office would
gain revenue from taking the mail piece back. The customer would just be
adding to land fill or the city coffers if the city has a recycle program.
Long Gone
Your arguement is like refusing to buy gas from Exxon-Mobil. If everyone
did it then the company would fold. Individual efforts have no impact. You
are assuming the bulk mail revenue would drop by your actions. Again, a
drop in the bucket. Bulk mail revenue will drop only when companies do not
see a return on their investment. Based on historical statistics, this is
not likely. Bulk mail has a tremendous return on investment or else they
would not do it.
Long Gone
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:f-Odndu3q6xQZKvV...@comcast.com...
Was there ever a doubt? ~g~
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>As far as the environmental issue, you're ignoring extra transportation
>>and handling costs to force the post office to dispose of it rather than
>>you. Just dispose of mail with your own paper recyclables. Raising the
>>cost of handling garbage sure as hell is not environmentally friendly in
>>any way. So tell your friend to stop harrassing his own carrier.
>That could be comparing apples and oranges. Many offices now have contracts
>where they are paid for waste paper. In that case, the post office would
>gain revenue from taking the mail piece back. The customer would just be
>adding to land fill or the city coffers if the city has a recycle program.
I doubt it's a profit center for the post office, even if it decreases
garbage disposal costs (a good thing, surely). My objection is the
additional pollution associated with transporting the piece back to the
post office, not unless the post office is willing to accept all my
waste paper at my house.
Long, maybe you've hit upon a more economical way of handling waste paper.
Robert DeSavage
wrote:
>Long Gone <not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>As far as the environmental issue, you're ignoring extra transportation
>>>and handling costs to force the post office to dispose of it rather than
>>>you. Just dispose of mail with your own paper recyclables. Raising the
>>>cost of handling garbage sure as hell is not environmentally friendly in
>>>any way. So tell your friend to stop harrassing his own carrier.
>
>>That could be comparing apples and oranges. Many offices now have contracts
>>where they are paid for waste paper. In that case, the post office would
>>gain revenue from taking the mail piece back. The customer would just be
>>adding to land fill or the city coffers if the city has a recycle program.
>
>I doubt it's a profit center for the post office, even if it decreases
>garbage disposal costs (a good thing, surely). My objection is the
>additional pollution associated with transporting the piece back to the
>post office, not unless the post office is willing to accept all my
>waste paper at my house.
I agree with you but with limits. While I simply toss the stuff I
don't want, had I left it for the carrier to take back to the office
wouldn't cause additional pollution since his route is a mounted route
rather than a park and loop route.
Adam H. Kerman
Do it railroad style! The mail sacks were picked up from the hoops
without stopping the train.
Long Gone
news:FvadnWKrOMEfuarV...@comcast.com...
(clip)
> I doubt it's a profit center for the post office, even if it decreases
> garbage disposal costs (a good thing, surely). My objection is the
> additional pollution associated with transporting the piece back to the
> post office, not unless the post office is willing to accept all my
> waste paper at my house.
I forget how the congressman said it but you know a million here, a million
there and we are starting to talk big money. As with anything, cost is
relative. The post office used to pay to have waste mail hauled off. Now
it is sold. So a double benefit as it were. Given the amount of waste mail
in a normal sized office, it soon adds up.
> Long, maybe you've hit upon a more economical way of handling waste paper.
You do have an interesting point. ~g~
Long Gone
news:7ebe345odhg3jp4l1...@4ax.com...
(clip)
> I agree with you but with limits. While I simply toss the stuff I
> don't want, had I left it for the carrier to take back to the office
> wouldn't cause additional pollution since his route is a mounted route
> rather than a park and loop route.
I am lost either way. I don't see pollution from the carrier taking mail
back to the office. Be the route mounted or park and loop the vehicle
creates no more pollution with the return mail than without it.
Long Gone
news:1_idnftF2YqTzqrV...@comcast.com...
(clip)
> Do it railroad style! The mail sacks were picked up from the hoops
> without stopping the train.
Railroad style? Is there better than doggie fashion? ~g~
Robert DeSavage
I'm splitting hairs here where it's possible that a park and loop
route carrier might have to use his vehicle to backtrack to a home
that has mail to be returned, contrary to his line of travel to the
next relay point. Of course, that would only be necessary if it was a
large bundle of stuff the carrier couldn't normally fit in the bag
while on foot. The issue is rather moot being that a vehicle's engine
on a mounted route usually isn't shut down while a park and loop route
vehicle is while walking the relay. Naturally, any overall savings and
possible reduction of pollution goes right out the window when the
supervisor (sometimes with another supe riding 'shotgun') uses his gas
hog SUV to conduct road supervision. It goes without saying that the
USPS is notorious for being penny wise and pound foolish.
Robert DeSavage
It all depends on whether you're mounting the engine or the caboose.
8-)
Robert DeSavage
wrote:
>
>Do it railroad style! The mail sacks were picked up from the hoops
>without stopping the train.
I hope the real trains did it better than my old American Flyer
electric train mail car and bag snatch post thingie. Every time the
train got to the post to grab the sack, the post would get knocked
down and the entire train derailed.
Adam H. Kerman
>I am lost either way. I don't see pollution from the carrier taking mail
>back to the office.
I suppose any additional pollution created by his vehicle is minimal,
although you'd think the vehicle would be idling longer as the carrier
deals with pointless work like this. Nevertheless, additional pollution is
associated with the item of garbage itself. Isn't there an environmental
concept of reducing the carbon footprint? This would tend to raise it by
giving the garbage still another intermediate destination.
Long Gone
You show your age when you know about the caboose.
Robert DeSavage
<not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>"Robert DeSavage" <alleg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:gs1f345c6mjnhfni8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 02:29:59 GMT, "Long Gone"
>> <not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1_idnftF2YqTzqrV...@comcast.com...
>>>(clip)
>>>> Do it railroad style! The mail sacks were picked up from the hoops
>>>> without stopping the train.
>>>
>>>Railroad style? Is there better than doggie fashion? ~g~
>>>
>> It all depends on whether you're mounting the engine or the caboose.
>> 8-)
>
>You show your age when you know about the caboose.
>
No more cabooses these days. Gone the way of the milkman and the
iceman. Just tail lights on the last car.
Spacey Spade
understand what I'm getting at, and like to talk about who is at fault
for this or that, rather than talk about issues (are you guys
politicians?)...
Since mail sorting is all computerized, it would be easy for the post
office to keep track of whom wants bulk mail, and whom does not. For
those that do not want bulk mail, only mail addressed to their name
would be delivered, and the rest sent to recycling centers.
That the Post Office does not do this, implies that they are an
institution for making money, NOT an institution for the people. If a
sizable number of people elected to not receive bulk mail, they would
lose revenue.
Adam H. Kerman
>In response to everyone further along in this thread, that don't
>understand what I'm getting at, and like to talk about who is at fault
>for this or that, rather than talk about issues (are you guys
>politicians?)...
We were just going by what you told us.
>Since mail sorting is all computerized, it would be easy for the post
>office to keep track of whom wants bulk mail, and whom does not. For
>those that do not want bulk mail, only mail addressed to their name
>would be delivered, and the rest sent to recycling centers.
No, the post office does not maintain occupant lists. The only database
they maintain is one for people who have given notice that they don't
want to receive erotic material in the mail, but I don't suppose that's
a terribly large database.
>That the Post Office does not do this, implies that they are an
>institution for making money, NOT an institution for the people. If a
>sizable number of people elected to not receive bulk mail, they would
>lose revenue.
That the post office doesn't do it reflects the current state of postal
laws. Another reason you'll never get rid of occupant mail is that the
law gives governments and elected officials the right to send saturation
mail without even using the street address, so members of Congress don't
have to buy address lists to mail newsletters.
Long Gone
> In response to everyone further along in this thread, that don't
> understand what I'm getting at, and like to talk about who is at fault
> for this or that, rather than talk about issues (are you guys
> politicians?)...
To this point, you have raised no issue other than you don't want bulk mail
and you are irritated by the actions of your carrier. At least that is what
I make of it.
> Since mail sorting is all computerized, it would be easy for the post
> office to keep track of whom wants bulk mail, and whom does not. For
> those that do not want bulk mail, only mail addressed to their name
> would be delivered, and the rest sent to recycling centers.
Sorting mail is one thing. Trying to extract specific types of mail is
totally another. There is a process that alerts the carrier to dispose of
specific mail from specific companies without delivering to you. It
requires you contact the mailer who then notifies the post office. You are
taking the position that all bulk mail has something other than your name on
it. In reality, most mail has a name and address although some standard
mail will have "or current resident" on it. As I said before, many offices
send the undeliverable mail to recycling centers.
> That the Post Office does not do this, implies that they are an
> institution for making money, NOT an institution for the people. If a
> sizable number of people elected to not receive bulk mail, they would
> lose revenue.
Would you prefer that the Postal Service lose money to the point that
revenue be needed from taxes? Under the current process, the Postal Service
is an independent agency of the federal government and totally self
supporting.
Long Gone
(clip)
> No, the post office does not maintain occupant lists. The only database
> they maintain is one for people who have given notice that they don't
> want to receive erotic material in the mail, but I don't suppose that's
> a terribly large database.
Not exactly true. There is a data base that has every address in the
country. There is a data base for those who have filed a change of address.
There are any number of internal ones.
Robert DeSavage
Name one corporation that's not in business to make money and
considers the people as being secondary. However, you're barking up
the wrong tree because the rank and file USPS employee IS for the
people. Sadly, their hands are tied more often than not. Contrary to
popular belief, employees are not involved in a horrid conspiracy with
the USPS to provide lousy service. In fact, quite often employees have
broken rules to help a customer even though they risk being penalized
for doing so. If you want to see regulations changed, contact your
elected officials and those who occupy the corner offices within USPS
Headquarters in D.C. Alt.snail-mail is the last place to go to in
order to see desired changes made. Those USPS employees who post here
are powerless to do it. After all that's said and done at work, USPS
employees like everyone else will return to their homes to find the
same stuff in their mailboxes as you find in yours. For sure, their
wishes are not commands the USPS will obey.
Spacey Spade
> "Spacey Spade" <spacey...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>
> To this point, you have raised no issue other than you don't want bulk mail
> and you are irritated by the actions of your carrier.
The right not to receive junk/bulk mail, aka advertising, for whatever
reason it is you do not want it. Something minor but still important.
> > Since mail sorting is all computerized, it would be easy for the post
> > office to keep track of whom wants bulk mail, and whom does not. For
> > those that do not want bulk mail, only mail addressed to their name
> > would be delivered, and the rest sent to recycling centers.
>
> Sorting mail is one thing. Trying to extract specific types of mail is
> totally another.
The optical character recognition scanners can read names as well as
addresses, so this is incorrect, in that mail not directed to a
specific person at a specific address could be sorted to the recycling
center.
I can already hear the next reply to this, saying that the post office
does not keep up with names at specific addresses! Wow, that would
just be impossible to implement! (note the sarcasm)
> > That the Post Office does not do this, implies that they are an
> > institution for making money, NOT an institution for the people. If a
> > sizable number of people elected to not receive bulk mail, they would
> > lose revenue.
>
> Would you prefer that the Postal Service lose money to the point that
> revenue be needed from taxes? Under the current process, the Postal Service
> is an independent agency of the federal government and totally self
> supporting.
I would prefer that an individual's rights be more important than
revenue for the government.
Robert DeSavage
After being retired for nearly 10 years, I know that many changes have
been made that I'm not even close to being familiar with. Do I
understand correctly that if a customer moves, the carrier who once
was provided with forwarding info, is given no info other than the
fact the party has moved?
Spacey Spade
> considers the people as being secondary.
My company... very few others.
> However, you're barking up
> the wrong tree because the rank and file USPS employee IS for the
> people. Sadly, their hands are tied more often than not. Contrary to
> popular belief, employees are not involved in a horrid conspiracy with
> the USPS to provide lousy service. In fact, quite often employees have
> broken rules to help a customer even though they risk being penalized
> for doing so. If you want to see regulations changed, contact your
> elected officials and those who occupy the corner offices within USPS
> Headquarters in D.C.
I agree. At the time I mistakenly thought the postal worker wasn't
following USPS code. Section 508 implies nothing about the details.
No where in:
1.1.2 Refusal at Delivery
The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for
delivery.
Does it say anything about writing "Refused" on the mail piece. Now I
realize what they tell them to do is different from what the USPS code
says.
Robert DeSavage
<spac...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>> Would you prefer that the Postal Service lose money to the point that
>> revenue be needed from taxes? Under the current process, the Postal Service
>> is an independent agency of the federal government and totally self
>> supporting.
>
>I would prefer that an individual's rights be more important than
>revenue for the government.
Individual's 'rights'???????? What might they be? Like the milkman and
iceman, individual's 'rights' are succumbing to obsolescence where
only those with big bucks in their pockets have 'rights'. Meanwhile,
the rest of us have to navigate thru a thick smoke screen they put up.
But we have only ourselves to blame for that since we've allowed
ourselves to be addicted to the wonders of the Internet where the
entire world knows more about you than you know about yourself. Being
inundated with a huge pile of paper is a hell of a lot harder for the
info spies to rummage thru than a bunch of cyber zeros and ones that
can be brought up on a monitor by a few key strokes.
Adam H. Kerman
>On May 24, 8:21 pm, "Long Gone" <noth...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>>>Since mail sorting is all computerized, it would be easy for the post
>>>office to keep track of whom wants bulk mail, and whom does not. For
>>>those that do not want bulk mail, only mail addressed to their name
>>>would be delivered, and the rest sent to recycling centers.
>>Sorting mail is one thing. Trying to extract specific types of mail is
>>totally another.
>The optical character recognition scanners can read names as well as
>addresses, so this is incorrect, in that mail not directed to a
>specific person at a specific address could be sorted to the recycling
>center.
>I can already hear the next reply to this, saying that the post office
>does not keep up with names at specific addresses! Wow, that would
>just be impossible to implement! (note the sarcasm)
Don't guess what my reply might be.
A lot of occupant mail simply doesn't go through OCR. No saturation mail
does, that is, mail for most or nearly all addresses on a route. OCR'ing
is far less sophisticated for flats than for letters and isn't done at
all for parcels.
Mail that's barcoded by the mailer does not go through OCR.
When letter mail is barcoded, it does go through OCR, however, the line
with the addressee on it isn't analyzed. It is analyzed for the purpose
of forwarding, but it doesn't work terribly well.
Adam H. Kerman
>I agree. At the time I mistakenly thought the postal worker wasn't
>following USPS code. Section 508 implies nothing about the details.
>No where in:
>1.1.2 Refusal at Delivery
>The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for
>delivery.
>Does it say anything about writing "Refused" on the mail piece. Now I
>realize what they tell them to do is different from what the USPS code
>says.
I explained to you elsewhere why you misinterpreted that section. You
paid no attention whatsoever. When the mail is placed in your letter
box, it's delivered. It isn't offered to the addressee for delivery
in most cases, except perhaps when the carrier enters a small business
and hands mail to the receptionist. Only accountable mail is offered for
delivery.
You want to refuse mail that's been delivered to you? Then it's your
job, not the carrier's, to write Refused on the address label. The
carrier MUST NOT do this.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>No, the post office does not maintain occupant lists. The only database
>>they maintain is one for people who have given notice that they don't
>>want to receive erotic material in the mail, but I don't suppose that's
>>a terribly large database.
>Not exactly true. There is a data base that has every address in the
>country.
You know perfectly well that the AIS database has no occupant field,
with the exception of a few firm names (which can be inconsistent or out
of date).
>There is a data base for those who have filed a change of address.
NCOA-II, yes. You got me there.
>There are any number of internal ones.
Of people whose mail is being read?
Adam H. Kerman
>After being retired for nearly 10 years, I know that many changes have
>been made that I'm not even close to being familiar with. Do I
>understand correctly that if a customer moves, the carrier who once
>was provided with forwarding info, is given no info other than the
>fact the party has moved?
Why the hell should the carrier get any information that could help him
properly handle nixie mail for his route? I know nothink. NOTHINK!
Long Gone
(clip)
The right not to receive junk/bulk mail, aka advertising, for whatever
reason it is you do not want it. Something minor but still important.
I suppose you never watch "free" television either for the same reasons.
Advertising is a fact of life. How willing are you to pay (and how much) to
avoid this minor irritant to your life?
(clip)
I would prefer that an individual's rights be more important than
revenue for the government.
Become a Libertarian if you are not already one.
Long Gone
(clip)
> After being retired for nearly 10 years, I know that many changes have
> been made that I'm not even close to being familiar with. Do I
> understand correctly that if a customer moves, the carrier who once
> was provided with forwarding info, is given no info other than the
> fact the party has moved?
True. There never was a need for the carrier at the old address to have
that information. All the carrier needs to know is the customer moved and
filed a COA. Bundle the mail and send it to CFS.
Long Gone
>> Name one corporation that's not in business to make money and
>> considers the people as being secondary.
>
> My company... very few others.
If you are not in business to make money, pray tell what are you in business
for? A company that does not make money goes out of business. How close to
that condition are you?
Long Gone
You lose me here Adam. El Presidente was talking about a change of address.
You are off on nixie mail.
Spacey Spade
> Spacey Spade <spacey...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >I agree. At the time I mistakenly thought the postal worker wasn't
> >following USPS code. Section 508 implies nothing about the details.
> >No where in:
> >1.1.2 Refusal at Delivery
> >The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for
> >delivery.
> >Does it say anything about writing "Refused" on the mail piece. Now I
> >realize what they tell them to do is different from what the USPS code
> >says.
>
> I explained to you elsewhere why you misinterpreted that section. You
> paid no attention whatsoever. When the mail is placed in your letter
> box, it's delivered. It isn't offered to the addressee for delivery
> in most cases, except perhaps when the carrier enters a small business
> and hands mail to the receptionist.
I guess I'll have to stand in front of the mailbox in anticipation for
the mailman *laughs* so I can spare myself having to write "refused"
on the junk mail.
Spacey Spade
> "Spacey Spade" <spacey...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
Yahoo didn't sell out to Microsoft, and I think that would have
benefited overall profit for shareholders. I put my clients first,
making money second. I do well.
Spacey Spade
> >>>Since mail sorting is all computerized, it would be easy for the post
> >>>office to keep track of whom wants bulk mail, and whom does not. For
> >>>those that do not want bulk mail, only mail addressed to their name
> >>>would be delivered, and the rest sent to recycling centers.
> >>Sorting mail is one thing. Trying to extract specific types of mail is
> >>totally another.
> >The optical character recognition scanners can read names as well as
> >addresses, so this is incorrect, in that mail not directed to a
> >specific person at a specific address could be sorted to the recycling
> >center.
> A lot of occupant mail simply doesn't go through OCR. No saturation mail
> does, that is, mail for most or nearly all addresses on a route. OCR'ing
> is far less sophisticated for flats than for letters and isn't done at
> all for parcels.
>
> Mail that's barcoded by the mailer does not go through OCR.
>
> When letter mail is barcoded, it does go through OCR, however, the line
> with the addressee on it isn't analyzed. It is analyzed for the purpose
> of forwarding, but it doesn't work terribly well.
Ok, while I don't know, I can imagine that the USPS makes available an
address database for advertisers, and they could take out those
addresses where people opt-out from advertising.
Robert DeSavage
Of course you're right. But back in the 'good old days' when the
carrier did the mark-ups by hand, if was necessary to have that info.
On one hand, automation is OK. However, machines will never match a
carrier's ability to fathom thru the numerous address idiosyncracies
caused by the sender. One way or the other, the carrier's job is never
made to be easier. Less office time means more street time, which in
my mind (as off the wall as it is) is a hell of a lot better than
spending more time in the office with a supervisor breathing down my
neck. At any rate, whatever the USPS does is OK by me knowing that I
no longer have to deal with comes down from 'above'.
Robert DeSavage
Once upon a time, ADVO would periodically issue control cards that
were addressed in walk order sequence. Any changes with the route
would be revised by the carrier popping each card in the proper slot
in his rack and pulled down for submission to ADVO. New buildings,
razed buildings, and customer requests (such as yours) could be
brought up to snuff. I'm old fashioned where until the day I kick the
bucket, I'll favor human intervention for the sake of accuracy over
the speedier but less accurate automation methods. While automation is
pretty good, when I carried, I was a hell of a lot better.
Robert DeSavage
I'm already a card carrying Libertarian. Seems to me that the
Libertarian party is a mix of yesteryear's Dems and Pubs. Today's 'Big
2' is nothing but new rot-gut wine sold in old bottles. FEH to today's
Dems and Pubs. They stay in power too much longer and we'll all be
doing a goose step to John Phillip Sousa just like the German did to
the Nazi's main man Wagner.
Long Gone
(clip)
> Ok, while I don't know, I can imagine that the USPS makes available an
> address database for advertisers, and they could take out those
> addresses where people opt-out from advertising.
Substitute "assume" for "imagine" (I like the definition better) and the
answer is still -- NO.
Long Gone
(clip)
> Of course you're right. But back in the 'good old days' when the
> carrier did the mark-ups by hand, if was necessary to have that info.
> On one hand, automation is OK. However, machines will never match a
> carrier's ability to fathom thru the numerous address idiosyncracies
> caused by the sender. One way or the other, the carrier's job is never
> made to be easier. Less office time means more street time, which in
> my mind (as off the wall as it is) is a hell of a lot better than
> spending more time in the office with a supervisor breathing down my
> neck. At any rate, whatever the USPS does is OK by me knowing that I
> no longer have to deal with comes down from 'above'.
Unless you were in the smallest of offices, the mark-ups should have been
done by clerks. As you suggest, machines can't think so any information
that is non-standard or incorrectly formated causes problems.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>After being retired for nearly 10 years, I know that many changes have
>>>been made that I'm not even close to being familiar with. Do I
>>>understand correctly that if a customer moves, the carrier who once
>>>was provided with forwarding info, is given no info other than the
>>>fact the party has moved?
>>Why the hell should the carrier get any information that could help him
>>properly handle nixie mail for his route? I know nothink. NOTHINK!
>You lose me here Adam. El Presidente was talking about a change of address.
>You are off on nixie mail.
Any mail undeliverable as addressed is a nixie including forwardable mail.
Adam H. Kerman
>True. There never was a need for the carrier at the old address to have
>that information. All the carrier needs to know is the customer moved and
>filed a COA. Bundle the mail and send it to CFS.
The carrier needs to know who moved, so he needs to see the order. Also,
the carrier should be responsible for verifying that the data entry was
performed according to the order.
Adam H. Kerman
>Mail that's barcoded by the mailer does not go through OCR.
>When letter mail is barcoded, it does go through OCR, however, the line
>with the addressee on it isn't analyzed.
I wrote that confusingly. Letter mail that the mailer has not barcoded
goes through OCR for barcoding.
Adam H. Kerman
>Ok, while I don't know, I can imagine that the USPS makes available an
>address database for advertisers, and they could take out those
>addresses where people opt-out from advertising.
Again, that would require a change in postal law. The post office must
not do anything of the kind under today's law.
dbriggs
you consider junk mail? for (hopefully) obvious reasons, the po does not
officially use that term. so how would you filter it? by class - only
deliver first and second (periodical) class? what happens when your (ex.
hot rod club) newsletter does not arrive? are you upset that the po
tossed it?
should there be an opt-in option for everyone in the country to say what
they want and don't want? yes, I want non-profit mail, but not
solicitations. no, I don't want advertisements except for Home Depot cuz
I follow the sales there, but not for the next six months cuz finances
are tight right now and home improvements are on the back burner.
if the don not mail thing ever goes thru, it will be a logistical nightmare
cya
Long Gone
news:uoWdnQtYbPGMCKTV...@comcast.com...
(clip)
> Any mail undeliverable as addressed is a nixie including forwardable mail.
A true nixie is a piece of mail with an "undeciperable" address. I don't
know what they taught you in Chicago but that your definition is not
correct. No wonder Chicago politics has taken us to where we are today!
Long Gone
No question the carrier needs to know who moved. The carrier is given that
information so he/she knows to send the mail piece to CFS. In today's
environment, some mail gets forwarded before it ever gets to the station
serving the original address. The carrier does not need to verify the
correctness of the data entry. While mistakes (data entry) do happen they
are not frequent.
Long Gone
news:4839aad3$0$31763$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
(clip)
> if the do not mail thing ever goes thru, it will be a logistical nightmare
It would me worse than a nightmare. You have to hope that at some point
people stop being obsessed with the "me first" syndrome that perpetuates
most of our social problems today.
Robert DeSavage
My office did change to the central mark-up system shortly after we
went from maroon stripes on our trousers to blue (I'm sure you know
what I mean). For the majority of the time before I retired, it was
done in-house by the clerks who used the familiar printed yellow
stickers. Finally forwarding for my office and offices nearby was
shipped out to the larger offices in the district (Boston, Providence,
Brockton) for processing. For the most part, it was efficient.
However, before forwarding mail was shipped out of town, if there were
problems that the central mark-up couldn't figure out, it was easy for
the clerk to stroll over to the carrier's desk to communicate directly
and resolve the problem then and there. If there were problems of the
same nature when done out of house, there could be a delay of a day or
so after article(s) were bounced back for clarification. But since
carriers now have no info at all to intervene, God only knows what
happens to unclear forwards. Even though a carrier might have info of
a moved customer's whereabouts, I presume that this info can't be
used. All of this is because of the Privacy Act? Yes? / No? (That unto
itself is one humongous national farce)
Robert DeSavage
<dbri...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>After following all of this banter, one question comes to mind - what do
>you consider junk mail?...snipped
My gas, electric, cable, homeowners and auto insurance bills. Although
he can't do it, my carrier has my express permission to toss all the
above and deliver the rest. 8-)
Robert DeSavage
Amen to that! People want to do away with 'this, that, and the other';
but if their wishes came true what would happen to our economy? It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that there'd be NO economy
if 'this, that, or the other' were to be scrapped. Until such time as
the eggheads at MIT can develop a tree or plant that legally grows
money in a person's back yard, people are gonna have to accept those
'this, thats, and others' be it they like it or not. What's really
crazy are those who are anti-USPS. It's one of the very few remaining
services that if a person never bought a postage stamp in his / her
life, it doesn't cost them one red cent to receive mail sent to them
by others. While they might argue that their taxes pay for this
service, their argument would have no merit at all. The proof would be
in the pudding where if the USPS went toes up, their Federal income
tax would be the same (if not more). Meanwhile, as they piss and moan
about postage going up by a lousy penny, the same people pay thru the
nose for Internet service after the USPS delivers the monthly bill for
free. And what do they get in return? Junk email sent by yahoos that
spend much of their waking hours sending out jokes and cartoons. What
makes it even more ridiculous is having a payment automatically
withdrawn from a person's checking account which is subject to a
'service charge'. It's a hell of a lot more than the paltry 42 cents
it costs to mail a letter. Who in their right mind should care if the
utility and insurance companies get their payment conveyed at the
speed of light? My check is in the mail where they'll get it soon
enough when it travels at 65 MPH in a truck.
Long Gone
(clip)> However, before forwarding mail was shipped out of town, if there
> problems that the central mark-up couldn't figure out, it was easy for
> the clerk to stroll over to the carrier's desk to communicate directly
> and resolve the problem then and there. If there were problems of the
> same nature when done out of house, there could be a delay of a day or
> so after article(s) were bounced back for clarification. But since
> carriers now have no info at all to intervene, God only knows what
> happens to unclear forwards. Even though a carrier might have info of
> a moved customer's whereabouts, I presume that this info can't be
> used. All of this is because of the Privacy Act? Yes? / No? (That unto
> itself is one humongous national farce)
All changes bring concerns. While DPS is more efficient there are still
problems with correct sortation. So it is with the forwarding system. Most
problems are quite small and generally result from the customer not knowing
their own ZIP Code or omitting a directional. Carriers now do not know the
new address of the customer (unless by direct conversation). Either way,
the information is not supposed to be released. Problems (corrections) with
forwards have to be resolved by the supervisor for the most part.
Long Gone
If that gets them paid as well then my carrier can do it too. What is
considered junk is like the visitor to the oil field asking what is that
terrible smell. To which the reply is "That is the smell of money". And
these days that is a lot of money!
Long Gone
(clip)
> My check is in the mail where they'll get it soon
> enough when it travels at 65 MPH in a truck.
And that is just on the downtown routes. ~g~
Robert DeSavage
<not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>All changes bring concerns. While DPS is more efficient there are still
>problems with correct sortation. So it is with the forwarding system. Most
>problems are quite small and generally result from the customer not knowing
>their own ZIP Code or omitting a directional...SNIPPED
You hit the nail squarely on the head! While the USPS has it's
shortcomings and growing pains, many of the problems are caused by the
customers themselves who thru error or not knowing the 'logistics' and
idiosyncracies (love that term) of a particular route make this a
valid claim. I'm sure that nearly every route has it's share of
Smiths, Jones, and Does often living on the same street and sharing
the same first names. My route had scads of O'Brians, Foleys, Folans,
as well as the others. It's one hell of an ode to figure out where
it's supposed to go if there's a house number that does not exist.
Lot's of times I've had to second guess or look for clues that make
for a common denominator in order to get the damned letter in the
right hands. I wish I had a doyme for all the times I've rung door
bells asking my customer, "Is this by chance yours?" Of course, a
carrier could say, "F*** It" and let the dead letter branch worry
about it. But that IMHO is lousy and impersonal service. When a
carrier delivers a route for 20 or 30 years, no truer words could be
said where the majority of my customers became my extended family.
When I first bid on my own route years ago, I met up with an old New
England Yankee retired letter carrier who admonished me with these
words, "Now that you have your own mail route, MARRY IT!" It makes
sense being that it's an integral part of my 24 hour day - 8 hours of
sleep, 8 hours of fighting with the old lady and the kids, and 8 hours
of work. It makes for a much better day when you go to work and keep
the customer satisfied. There were fringe benefits - sometimes not to
be shared with or mentioned to the old lady. 8-)
Long Gone
(clip)
> When I first bid on my own route years ago, I met up with an old New
> England Yankee retired letter carrier who admonished me with these
> words, "Now that you have your own mail route, MARRY IT!" It makes
> sense being that it's an integral part of my 24 hour day - 8 hours of
> sleep, 8 hours of fighting with the old lady and the kids, and 8 hours
> of work. It makes for a much better day when you go to work and keep
> the customer satisfied. There were fringe benefits - sometimes not to
> be shared with or mentioned to the old lady. 8-)
And, as a good mailman, I am sure you never rang more than twice.
Adam H. Kerman
>"dbriggs" <dbri...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>if the do not mail thing ever goes thru, it will be a logistical nightmare
>It would me worse than a nightmare. You have to hope that at some point
>people stop being obsessed with the "me first" syndrome that perpetuates
>most of our social problems today.
Isn't that the political philosophy driving Bush's foreign relations?
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Any mail undeliverable as addressed is a nixie including forwardable mail.
>A true nixie is a piece of mail with an "undeciperable" address. I don't
>know what they taught you in Chicago
I was taught how to spell, at least.
>but that your definition is not correct. No wonder Chicago politics
>has taken us to where we are today!
Like junk mail, nixie is found no where in the DMM.
Adam H. Kerman
>While DPS is more efficient there are still problems with correct sortation.
This I can't figure out. Of all the things wrong with DPS, you'd think
that screwing up the sorting order would not be a problem. This is
something machine logic can handle.
>So it is with the forwarding system.
Snort. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
>Most problems are quite small and generally result from the customer
>not knowing their own ZIP Code or omitting a directional.
Problems like these can be avoided by the customer being present when
the data entry is performed, but that's not going to happen.
I told you this story, didn't I? A few years back, a customer writing an
address on a forwarding order resulted in one of my business addresses
receiving her forwarded mail. When I spoke to the post office in
question, the clerk who did the data entry admitted to me that she knew
the address she'd been given was wrong since my address and ZIP Code
didn't match, but nevertheless she entered it on the "Not my problem"
philosophy that guides the human race.
I gathered all the woman's mail I'd received and mailed it back to the
postmaster of her old office with a note.
Adam H. Kerman
How can you possibly know the frequency of error?
Robert DeSavage
I never had to ring. Maybe Spacey Spade tosses refused mail in his
carrier's vehicle, but the ladies on my route tossed their house keys
in mine. Just call me the USPS version of Tom Jones - "EL PRESIDENTE'
- STAR OF STREETS, ROADS, AND LANES"
dbriggs
cya
Long Gone
Foreign relations? I thought only democrats had relations and were they
foreign?. ~g~
Long Gone
news:FMydnXDgHuP1cKTV...@comcast.com...
That is true. But the vast majority of postal employees know what a nixie
is and that it doesn't include forwardable mail.
Long Gone
> Long Gone <not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>
>>While DPS is more efficient there are still problems with correct
>>sortation.
>
> This I can't figure out. Of all the things wrong with DPS, you'd think
> that screwing up the sorting order would not be a problem. This is
> something machine logic can handle.
In reality, DPS does not screw it up. It happens on the machines. CSBCS
machines are worse than DBCS but both will misfeed from time to time.
>>So it is with the forwarding system.
>
> Snort. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Not sure what I have to do buy the bridge. Maybe there will be another
Steve Brodie to make it worth owning.
>>Most problems are quite small and generally result from the customer
>>not knowing their own ZIP Code or omitting a directional.
>
> Problems like these can be avoided by the customer being present when
> the data entry is performed, but that's not going to happen.
The vast majority of this type problem could be eliminated if the address
was just compared to our AMS database. It boggles the mind why the CFS
database blindly accepts the customers information when it is so easily
corrected.
> I told you this story, didn't I? A few years back, a customer writing an
> address on a forwarding order resulted in one of my business addresses
> receiving her forwarded mail. When I spoke to the post office in
> question, the clerk who did the data entry admitted to me that she knew
> the address she'd been given was wrong since my address and ZIP Code
> didn't match, but nevertheless she entered it on the "Not my problem"
> philosophy that guides the human race.
>
> I gathered all the woman's mail I'd received and mailed it back to the
> postmaster of her old office with a note.
A bad approach by the clerk. I hope the old office cleared the problem
quickly.
Long Gone
(clip)
> How can you possibly know the frequency of error?
Do you suppose a report showing corrections might be an indicator? Also,
one could (with less accuracy) extrapolate anecdotal experiences.
Long Gone
In which case, submission of a 3996 would be appropriate. Then expect a LOW
for exceeding street time. ~g~
Robert DeSavage
See the doctor???? If more than four hours, it's likely I took a turn
for the nurse.
Robert DeSavage
That would be a very low thing for them to do.
Robert DeSavage
That's because my bag is made of leather. I yam their mailman!
Adam H. Kerman
Hey, Long, give El Presidente some credit. He wasn't using any street
time, as the ladies invited him in.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Long Gone <not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>>>So it is with the forwarding system.
>>Snort. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
>Not sure what I have to do buy the bridge. Maybe there will be another
>Steve Brodie to make it worth owning.
>>>Most problems are quite small and generally result from the customer
>>>not knowing their own ZIP Code or omitting a directional.
>>Problems like these can be avoided by the customer being present when
>>the data entry is performed, but that's not going to happen.
>The vast majority of this type problem could be eliminated if the address
>was just compared to our AMS database. It boggles the mind why the CFS
>database blindly accepts the customers information when it is so easily
>corrected.
Exactly. My thought is that the customer should hand in his forwarding
notice to a clerk who will immediately perform data entry and can ask
the customer for clarification of an address mismatch.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Long Gone <not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Any mail undeliverable as addressed is a nixie including forwardable
>>>>mail.
>>>A true nixie is a piece of mail with an "undeciperable" address. I don't
>>>know what they taught you in Chicago
>>I was taught how to spell, at least.
>>>but that your definition is not correct. No wonder Chicago politics
>>>has taken us to where we are today!
>>Like junk mail, nixie is found no where in the DMM.
>That is true. But the vast majority of postal employees know what a nixie
>is and that it doesn't include forwardable mail.
Only certain nixies were handled by the nixie clerk. I recall that a
different clerk dealt with forwarding issues, although when I
moonlighted, we had already been enjoying the "benefits" of centralized
forwarding for a few years.
Long Gone
news:eL-dnf2gN7vPdqfV...@comcast.com...
True that. I suppose since it was "house call" it would be the same as
expanded office time. ~g~
Long Gone
news:eL-dnfygN7uVcafV...@comcast.com...
(clip)
> Exactly. My thought is that the customer should hand in his forwarding
> notice to a clerk who will immediately perform data entry and can ask
> the customer for clarification of an address mismatch.
Another task for the overworked window clerk! Not sure if it would pass
muster in this day and age of reducing clerks and still having less than
five minutes for wait time in line.
Long Gone
news:eL-dnf-gN7tVcafV...@comcast.com...
(clip)
> Only certain nixies were handled by the nixie clerk. I recall that a
> different clerk dealt with forwarding issues, although when I
> moonlighted, we had already been enjoying the "benefits" of centralized
> forwarding for a few years.
Old age and a fading memory are catching up with you. ~g~
Normally, there would only be one or two clerks that were considered to be
nixie clerks. They took all of the strangely addressed mail and decided the
correct address in the local office or based on many prior experiences
correctly "guessed" the destination city based on similarity of ZIP Codes.
In the old days, it was not unheard of for a small office to get mail
addressed to a street address in another city but using the small office
name. Customers would look up the ZIP Code and go to the top of the page
for the city.
The "different" clerk you mention would be one of several that processed all
forwarded mail. Years ago, applying the label by hand. In recent years, by
machines in another office.
Robert DeSavage
While it's a valid claim, it would never stand up in a grievance
procedure.
Adam H. Kerman
The lady is the one who would have the grievance, then.
Adam H. Kerman
Reducing clerks? None is over 5 foot 2?
Robert DeSavage
wrote:
Especially as I get older. These days when someone asks me, "What's
up?", I have to be honest and say, "Everything but!"
dbriggs
cya
Long Gone
Adam's wit as only he can display it. ~g~
Long Gone
Eyes of blue.
But oh what those five feet can do.
Has anybody seen my window clerk. ~g~
Long Gone
You are definitely in the minority or so say Masters and Johnson.
Robert DeSavage
<not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
Indeed! There's but a minor difference between the minority and the
majority. The majority don't wanna admit it! But some day they'll come
to terms that 'This Bed's Made For Sleepin' and will have learned to
accept rejection when the lady of the night sez, 'These Shoes Made For
Walkin'
Long Gone
(clip)
> Indeed! There's but a minor difference between the minority and the
> majority. The majority don't wanna admit it! But some day they'll come
> to terms that 'This Bed's Made For Sleepin' and will have learned to
> accept rejection when the lady of the night sez, 'These Shoes Made For
> Walkin'
I have always thought that once a king always a king but once a knight is
enough. ~g~
Robert DeSavage
Good kings have wisdom where they'll not send a knight out on a dog
like this.
Robert DeSavage
wrote:
>Long Gone <not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
If the truth must be known, some carriers insist that you're not a
REAL carrier until you get laid on the route. Only once did I have the
'opportunity' where I had some slack time. While I was interested, my
interest was squashed when at that very time a supervisor drove up in
his car to tell me that he'd be tagging along with me for a while for
'street supervision'. It was one of those things that wouldn't
otherwise happen in a million years. Could be that my late wife shot a
lightning bolt up my ass from 'above' (or below" and somehow passed
the word to management. Talk about ruling from the grave. 8-)
jkl...@my-deja.com
> I have the section below taped to my mailbox. I recently refused some
> junk mail when the mailman came to my mailbox, when he was at the next
> door neighbor's mailbox. I told him I didn't want it, and he said I
> could throw it away. Instead I put it in his vehicle. He backed up
> to put the junk mail in my mailbox, but I stood in front of the
> mailbox. He put it at my feet and drove off.
I just take all the catalogs I receive, write "refused" on them, and
dump them in the mailbox.
goPostal
<jkl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3fc958b0-a99c-4084...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You are wasting your time. All the carrier does is give it to the clerks and
they throw it away. Might as well do it yourself.