| noname2200 said: I have no problem with the postal service. I'd also like to correct the idea that the "government bails them out" (they have not received government money since 1982). The postal service would also bring in a sizable profit each year, except they are required by a 2006 law to fund the retirement costs of employees who haven't even been born yet. |
That's actually not true.
They only have to fund current workers.
what makes people think they have to fund the retirment costs of employees who haven't been born yet is that they have to account for them i'm their financial statements.
So it doesn't actually effect their bottom line.
They are losing money because unlike most employers they have to fund a higher percentage of their employees benefits, unlike most other companies who get away with a little mutual fund that maybe covers 10% of the costs, and can just dump retirees like bricks when the company hits hard times.
Is it unfair? Sure... however i'd argue that it's not wrong.
In otherwords the problem isn't that the post office's burden is unfair, the unfair part is that nobody else is forced to properly fund promised benefits.
