Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

UN Postal Union Clinches Deal To Keep US in Club (reuters.com) 73

Posted by msmash from the you've-got-mail dept.
The U.N. agency coordinating postal systems worldwide on Wednesday reached a compromise to reform its fee structure, proposed by the United States, that would avert the Trump administration leaving the global network. From a report: The deal was agreed by consensus at the Universal Postal Union's emergency congress after two days of talks, with delegates standing to applaud. The Trump administration served notice last October that it would leave in 12 months unless fee rates were changed so that importing countries did not lose money from distributing mail and packages from countries including China in the age of e-commerce. Under the phased agreement, high-volume importers of mail and packages would be allowed to begin imposing "self-declared rates" for distributing foreign mail from January 2021. Countries with more than 75,000 tonnes in post imported annually -- mainly the United States -- may apply their self-declared new rates from July 2020, UPU officials said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UN Postal Union Clinches Deal To Keep US in Club More

UN Postal Union Clinches Deal To Keep US in Club

Comments Filter:

  • Good (Score:3)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @01:17PM (#59235318)

    Now let's work on the ridiculous rates the USPS gets for all the junk mail. The 30 pages of mixed and loose ads you get, all wrapped in a single newspaper-like outer page sheet, count as 1 piece at a super low bulk rate for the USPS.

    Just make everything not physically bound or enveloped on all sides count as an individual piece and we're good to go.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by afidel ( 530433 )

      Bulk mail is a money maker for the USPS, in fact they would have to have a massive increase in first class mail if they were to eliminate bulk mail. Basically bulk mail defrays a huge amount of their fixed costs which can only go down slightly given their mandate to serve every household in the country.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)

        by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @01:27PM (#59235382)

        Wrong. I'm talking about the loosely tossed together junk mail full of various ads that you get once every couple of weeks in most markets.
        That gets a special bulk rate and ALL of it counts as one piece because the larger, outer sheet is the only one being paid for.
        Ask any postal worker about it.

        They can't stop delivering it. They can't charge more. They can't charge for each actual piece of it. It's a huge cost and burden to them. One of the workers on my route just stacks X of them in a common area instead of delivering X of them to individual mailboxes. I'm glad they do this, but they're not supposed to.

      • they would have to have a massive increase in first class mail if they were to eliminate bulk mail.

        I would happily pay more for 1st class if I could get rid of the mounds of junk mail that fill my mailbox.

        I think I sent two 1st class letters in the last year: My state income tax form, and my sewer bill.

        • I would happily pay more for 1st class if I could get rid of the mounds of junk mail that fill my mailbox.

          I think I sent two 1st class letters in the last year: My state income tax form, and my sewer bill.

          So basically you're demanding that everyone else pitches in to pay for sparing you of the inconvenience of sorting mail.

          You're so lazy you have to externalize the cost of being so?

          • No pay more to eliminate waste. You pay more...you don't get all the flipping junk mail. You don't pay more, you still get bombarded with it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            First: you're defending spam. That makes you a bad person, and you should feel bad.

            Who is this "everyone else" that sends a bunch of letters in this day and age? Why shouldn't they pay for the actual cost of their mail being delivered?

            Most non-spam mail these days is bills, sent to people who chose not to get electronic bill delivery. The cost is usually passed on to the customer these days. I'm OK with that.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by pnutjam ( 523990 )
              The cost for billing is built in already. I'll take ebills if they put something in it for me, otherwise I'll stick with a good old paper bill.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by afidel ( 530433 )

              sent to people who chose not to get electronic bill delivery
              Like the ~20% of the population that are unbanked because they are poor and financial institutions have been so predatory towards them that the can't/won't get a checking account?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by lgw ( 121541 )

                Pretty much everyone who gets utility bills in the first place has email.

    • I don't mind them delivering free fire-starter material to my home.

      It actually works out pretty well- I get free paper to start a fire with and the advertisers think they're influencing me to buy their shit, which is something they're completely mistaken about. I never look at the ads, they get thrown straight into the box with the tinder and matches.

  • >> UN Postal Union Clinches Deal To Keep US in Club

    Didn't read TFA, but the summary suggests that a better headline would have been "Trump Administration Forces Fee Change Through Universal Postal Union To Unexpected Applause". Still no clue why anyone would care, though, especially not nerds.

    • Stamp collectors? I mean, it is kinda mail related... Best I could do on short notice.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gmack ( 197796 )

      We should care, given how much crap we tend to order as a group since most of this stuff is sold online through Amazon, Ebay, aliexpress etc. This is also one of the few things Trump has done that I agree with since it is cheaper to send from China to the US than it is to ship from the US to the US and that's not fair to local companies.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by denzacar ( 181829 )

        Remember you agreed with that when you start getting nickel-and-dimed on EVERYTHING your order from now on.

        A LOT MORE when there's a xenophobic moron in the White House who'll pressure self-appointed flunkies to apply exorbitant "self-declared new rates" so as to have "China pay for it".
        Much like how he got Mexico to pay for the "wall" - by robbing the taxpayers through the military budget, at the expense of national security.

        Cost of transport was always the easiest thing to dump on the consumer.
        And this wi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gmack ( 197796 )

          This is basically a new hidden tax you'll be paying on your orders.

          Agreed, but now this tax is equal for both local and foreign. I'm certain the UN Postal Union knew well enough not to allow the US to charge more than the USPS charges locally for foreign deliveries.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          Creating a financial incentive to buy local, rather than help send jobs to China, is a good thing. Why would you complain about incentives to move jobs back to the US? (Unless you're a Chinese state troll, in which case, fine,at least it's a job.)

    • Nerds benefit from the low cost shipping of electronics from china?

      I'm just not sure it's a big difference, the consumers are paying the shipping cost in the end whether it's upfront shipping charges or in tax dollars. Perhaps it will make those that only purchase local happy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by uncqual ( 836337 )

        DX.com will be hurt by this. I order cheap stuff from there on the 20% chance it will actually be useful (for something - maybe not its expected use) but losing the free shipping (or having the Trump postal tax imposed on the price) will pretty much end that practice. I don't see how any tax dollars are saved by this move - unless you consider that the USPS pensions will eventually have to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that any potential tax savings from this move won't result in lo

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by uncqual ( 836337 )

            As the complete sentence you quoted part of said:

            I don't see how any tax dollars are saved by this move - unless you consider that the USPS pensions will eventually have to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

            Of course it's likely a bailout will be needed, that's not currently anticipated in the any federal budget projections I've seen. Of course the USPS will pay their debt - we all know that, what could possibly go wrong?

            If Sanders or Warren get elected and manage to get even ten percent of their agenda through

      • the consumers are paying the shipping cost in the end whether it's upfront shipping charges or in tax dollars.

        Another possibility is the higher shipping costs will go into somebody's pocket as profit and not back to consumers or taxpayers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Still no clue why anyone would care, though, especially not nerds.

      Because if you order anything with "free shipping" from China, expect to pay a lot more money for them.

      There's a reason why it costs 50 cents to post a letter within the US, and yet you can buy some parts from China for $1 delivered. Do the same thing in the US and it'll cost 5 times that in shipping alone.

      The UPU sets the amount per item that the destination postal system receives to handle the mail. This is because universally, the recipien

  • Hmm, will this be the end of the ridiculous competitive advantage for Amazon marketplace counterfeits and alibaba? I would guess that the tariffs will actually prop them up until a trade deal as the USPS does not collect duties.

  • Perspective from someone in the industry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kingbilly ( 993754 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @01:59PM (#59235616)
    Typing this from work, where I oversea B2C shipments for 30 stores on 14 different marketplaces.


    It currently costs less for someone in China to send a package to someone in Miami, than it does for someone in Orlando to send a package to Miami. China gets this deal because they are considered a developing nation. Probably an outdated consideration. I agree with the phrase I've seen online: anyone with a space program isn't a developing nation. With exceptions I suppose (if you used all the budget you entire existence to launch one missile?).


    Interesting video on how things are priced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com].

    Also, the AC who thinks this is about unions inside the USA, like factory workers, you are so wrong. That isn't what is being discussed.

    • Re:Perspective from someone in the industry (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:13PM (#59235698)

      I believe you are incorrect, Planet Money did an episode [npr.org] on this topic a while ago.

      The tldr version is that when the postal union was founded it was assumed that international post would generally be reciprocal so it would even out. The imbalance is not actually new, though previously it was the USA taking advantage of it to the tune of $275-million a year in 2010.

      • Re:Perspective from someone in the industry (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:19PM (#59235730)

        Reporters only say what their sources tell them.

        The fact is, China is not a developing nation by any stretch of the imagination. The WTO has the same issue, namely, China is reaping the benefits of a developing nation categorization even though it's not a developing nation anymore.

        • At the end of his term, the USA gets to have an (un)developing country status! Checkmate, China!

        • The fact is, China is not a developing nation by any stretch of the imagination.

          The fact is that there is no formal definition of "developing" country [wikipedia.org]. As seen in this Wikipedia page, the World Bank categorizes nations into four groups based on their GNI per capita. China is at around the middle of the "middle upper" group at $9,470 GNI per capita [wikipedia.org]. Is it considered "developed" then? Perhaps not when countries like Venezuela, Argentina, Costa Rica and the world average are ahead of China.

          Bottom line, given there is no official definition of "developingness" and no re-assessment timelin

        • By what measure are you going by. If you go pure GDP numbers instead of "GDP per person" than Monaco and its poultry few billions a year, sure qualify it as a "developing country"

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          China's status isn't relevant here. In 2010 the United States voted with China to keep the fees low, because the US was a net exporter and benefited to the tune of hundreds of millions of Dollars a year.

          Now the boot is on the other foot the US wants the fees to go up.

          It's purely about what benefits the US, not what is fair or good for developing nations.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Thank you! This explains why I can order 75 cents of electronics from China and have it delivered to me in the US with free shipping. (The catch is that it takes 30-60 days...)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gosand ( 234100 )

      I agree with the phrase I've seen online: anyone with a space program isn't a developing nation. With exceptions I suppose (if you used all the budget you entire existence to launch one missile?).

      India is also a developing country with a space program. They are also the country with the highest number of people who defecate openly outdoors without using toilets. I've visited a tech-hub city in India with > 2MM people... and from what I saw "developing" is being generous.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by uncqual ( 836337 )

        They are also the country with the highest number of people who defecate openly outdoors without using toilets.

        Initially I caught this sentence on a quick initial skim and I was wondering why shipping stuff from San Francisco was being discussed in this story. Then I realized it said "country" not "county" (The county and city of San Francisco have identical boundaries.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        I think the point holds though that if they have the resources to invest in a space programme then it should not be necessary to subsidise their other activities.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by amorsen ( 7485 )

      I agree with the phrase I've seen online: anyone with a space program isn't a developing nation.

      China and India have such large populations and such internal divisions that they cannot really be thought of as homogeneous nations. Some parts definitely count as developing nations, other parts not so much.

    • I hear a lot of talk of why is China in the "developing country" list when it has the 2nd highest GDP in the world, but that is only because it has the largest population in the World. When you divide their GDP by their population "GDP per Capita," Iraq Botswana and Costa Rica makes more per person than China. I don't hear anyone moaning about removing those countries from the developing list. Outside the Big glitzy cities most of what you will see in China is the kind of abject poverty you see in those "sh

  • A broken clock is right twice a day (Score:4)

    by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:16PM (#59235712)

    I'm normally not a fan of Trump's actions, but this actually seems like a good thing. The way the fees were previously structured, some exporters were able to externalize their costs by pushing them onto the destination country's postal system. Most obviously, this meant that the USPS was being forced to subsidize shipments of small goods from China, rather than the cost of delivery being paid by the ones directly benefitting from it. That's out of alignment with how things should be, since it leaves the government/taxpayers footing the bill for something they don't benefit from, rather than businesses/consumers bearing the actual cost of the goods they've purchased.

    With the new system, those costs are being pushed back to the exporting country, who will inevitably push it to the sender, who will inevitably push it to the purchaser. As such, shipping costs for certain types of imports may go up, but it also means that the government—and by extension, the rest of us—aren't footing the bill so certain people can import goods at prices that are below-cost.

    • I'm normally not a fan of Trump's actions, but this actually seems like a good thing. The way the fees were previously structured, some exporters were able to externalize their costs by pushing them onto the destination country's postal system. Most obviously, this meant that the USPS was being forced to subsidize shipments of small goods from China, rather than the cost of delivery being paid by the ones directly benefitting from it.

      And how many products bought from China do you get with free shipping? The shipping cost isn't going to be paid by the company selling the product being shipped; it's going to be paid by the person ordering the product, with the shipping cost being added to the price of the product when they make the purchase. It's the same problem that you have with tariffs -- if a Chinese company makes a product that costs them $50 to make and ship to the US, and they sell it to their distributors for $100, when Trump im

      • The shipping cost isn't going to be paid by the company selling the product being shipped; it's going to be paid by the person ordering the product, with the shipping cost being added to the price of the product when they make the purchase.

        Agreed. In fact, it's something I already said. To quote my previous post, "With the new system, those costs are being pushed back to the exporting country, who will inevitably push it to the sender, who will inevitably push it to the purchaser." Which is to say, you and I are clearly in agreement on how this will play out, but where we seem to differ is in terms of what that means.

        It's the same problem that you have with tariffs

        Not really, though it does bear some similarity. Whereas tariffs impose costs where none exist, this change merely shifts exist

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by TopherC ( 412335 )

          I agree with this, and want to add that it adds incentive for US consumers to purchase things that are sourced in-country. If a higher cost of shipping from overseas as passed on to the consumer, that allows the consumers to correctly account for that in their decision-making.

          But ... this comes from the Trump administration! I can't get my head around that! Up to now, every action from that administration boldly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of any topic related to policy-making or diplomacy

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by amorsen ( 7485 )

        so that it's the US customers that are the ones actually paying

        That is how it should be. The US customers who buy stuff overseas should be paying for the shipping of that stuff. It should not be paid for by all the users of the USPS who do not happen to buy stuff overseas.

      • And how many products bought from China do you get with free shipping?* The shipping cost isn't going to be paid by the company selling the product being shipped; it's going to be paid by the person ordering the product, with the shipping cost being added to the price of the product when they make the purchase.

        Reading comprehension fail. Look at what you were replying to:

        With the new system, those costs are being pushed back to the exporting country, who will inevitably push it to the sender, who will inevitably push it to the purchaser.

        In other words, exactly what your "correction" said.

        Then you continue with an analysis fail:

        It's the same problem that you have with tariffs ...

        No. A tariff is a tax added to the cost of the product. This is shifting an existing cost that is currently paid by the USPS onto the purchaser.

        * PS: Lots of stuff comes from China with "free" shipping.

      • The shipping cost isn't going to be paid by the company selling the product being shipped; it's going to be paid by the person ordering the product, with the shipping cost being added to the price of the product when they make the purchase.

        Yes.

        This way the USPS gets paid for the labors of its workers.

        This way the consumer price of the item ordered from China is pushed up to parity with a product purchased from a local seller. -Probably not achieving price parity with a US manufactured item, but parity with a US wholesaler/importer who can be held responsible for support/safety regulations/etc.

        So, yes. An increase in consumer price, as well as a benefit for workers and consumers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      I'm normally not a fan of Trump's actions, but

      This may have achieved meme status; "I don't like Trump buuuuut...."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        I recall people denying that he's ever done anything good. It's a healthy improvement for people to acknowledge that it isn't a binary situation and that someone's behaviour is never entirely one thing or another.

  • Trump did something sane and normal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @02:24PM (#59235756) Homepage

    I just have to point at that Trump negotiated a deal that was sane, normal, and everyone agreed with. Mark this day! Strangely, even China agreed although I'm not sure why.

  • What is the world coming to? ... ;)

    I hope this means things change here in Germany too.
    I've observed that I can order a product in a package or "letter" for 1 EUR, when the sole delivery inside Germany would already cost more.
    And that they lose money on every delivery "because China can".

    Not that the DHL & co aren't sleazy slaver dirtbags themselves... but this definitely isn't right.
    Chinese manufacturers should pay what it costs to do the delivery. Period. Even if I have to foot that bill in the end.

    Be

    • Nope, the EU doesn't have the will or the balls to threaten just pulling out en block.

      Any individual EU country can't really do it, the EU as a whole could but won't. A bunch of EU globalists playing tough with other globalist bureaucrats for the good of their constituency? Never going to happen.

      This is exactly what the EU should be good for, but as always it's good for nothing.

  • I guess this is why we've long been able to buy things like a couple washers on ebay for $2 including shipping from the far east. This is something I've made good use of. I hope I don't have to go back to paying a US middleman.

  • About time (Score:3)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2019 @04:35PM (#59236448) Journal
    Seriously, when China can mail 2+ kg to America for less than what it costs me to send an open postcard to my neighbor, is just insane. But the rest of the west will continue to have the same issue. China will dump on them
  • So trump did a thing an lowered the fees? Wasn't that the plan?
  • So that means that government workers who are not representatives of the people are representatives unto themselves. I guess conflict of interest never entered their minds... oh, yeah... I forgot... conflict of interest never enters the minds of union workers.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close