(Excerpted from the latest edition of Postal Points)
Perhaps more in the Washington (DC) market than elsewhere, editorialists like to use their position to tell elected officials how to do their jobs. In middle America, perhaps that means urging them to approve a new sewer line or higher pay for local teachers, but in DC it often means letting Congress know how the writers believe legislative issues should be handled.
There are two major newspapers in Washington, the Post, which dominates the market, and the Times; they tend to be more liberal or conservative, respectively, giving each community an outlet from which to receive news as it would prefer it provided (or – let’s be honest – slanted). Given that basic pattern, therefore, it was somewhat surprising to read an editorial in the July 9 Washington Post that took a position on the Postal Service that seemed more consistent with what the mailing industry would say than what the Post’s usual constituency would argue.
What makes this editorial interesting is three things: First, it’s noteworthy that a topic like postal reform was judged worthy of comment by the editorial board, given that other subjects like the economy and international politics are much sexier. Second, it’s interesting that the Post was less than sympathetic to a labor union and its socialist attitudes than historical trends would cause a reader to expect. Finally, it’s surprising that the writers expressed a business-like view when summing-up the Postal Service’s problems and, more importantly, what should be done to address them. Closing facilities means shedding jobs, which the unions oppose instinctively, so the newspaper’s advocating steps to trim the postal infrastructure was a little surprising...
With that in mind, it’s not insignificant that the Post published an editorial essentially critical of the more liberal Senate’s postal bill (S 1789, passed last April) and of recent steps by one of the chamber’s partisan leaders to impede any moves to streamline the postal network. Equally noteworthy is the paper’s clear message to postal labor that it’s out of step with reality and should stop acting as if it would be a sin against nature if postal workers weren’t insulated from economic impact indefinitely.
Writing favorably about the measure being advanced in the more conservative House of representatives (HR 2309) also meant supporting the bill’s more aggressive mandate about closing redundant facilities and imposing an oversight commission on the Postal Service to take those cost-reduction steps that the agency isn’t taking on its own (because of Congressional roadblocks)...
But perhaps the more basic question is whether the politicians believe the editorial will make an impact in November. On that point, the Post may lose: the postal labor unions’ reach is wider than the newspaper’s, and the unions’ ability to translate their position into money and votes is more tangible to politicians than is the Post’s philosophical sermonizing.
For this commentary in it's entirety, as well as additional insight and information on the USPS today, please read the July 9 edition of Postal Points, Issue #12-10.