At the time, an argument was given that the mail-sorting machines were being scrapped (1) to make more room for package sorting (as mentioned above), but also (2) to make room for newer and better and faster sorting machines what were going to take their place . . . someday.
Where machines were removed for the purpose of making room for newer machines, it seemed profoundly stupid and not credible to do so before any new machines were ready to take their places, which there were not. Hence the widespread opinion that it was done deliberately to slow the mail down. That furthermore left unexplained why those machines were being physically dismantled and the parts thrown out in back-alley dumpsters. There were several published photos of that.
Do you have any proof of any of your claims? Because at both places I worked stuff was immediately slotted into the areas that formerly had APBS machines, and despite removing the machines there really wasn’t that big of a hit to processing because of the fact mail volume for standard/3rd class mail was down so much.
Machines were dumped because they were older models, the useful parts were taken and applied to newer machines. What exactly did you think they were going to do with the machines? Buy a new warehouse and store these old ones indefinitely?
The overtime rules were the ones that really delayed the mail, the APBS removals had nothing to do with it.
The nomination mentioned in the Forbes article did not get a vote before the Congressional session ended, so Biden will have the opportunity to appoint 4 Democrats to the Board which would shift it to a 5-4 Democrat/Republican majority.
LIke many of the departments under Trump, it seems that people were appointed whose primary task was to destroy the department itself. In many ways, this simply is a logical extension of some conservatives, who believe that government itself needs to be destroyed (or “drowned in a bathtub” to borrow a Grover Norquist term)
Destroying a government function is seen as a GOOD THING by many Republicans, and they enthusiastically cheered Trump’s efforts in this area. Partly, it means more money for private companies and/or takeover by a private monopoly that can be controlled by an oligarch.
If the public is harmed by these actions, or if they have to pay more, or if services are not provided to remote areas of the country; Tough shit. The point is to consolidate more money and power into the hands of a very few multi-billionaires.
So to answer the question; Yes, DeJoy did create the USPS slowdown. This was his mandate.
I came across an interesting article by TIME about DeJoy, which indicates that the Dems have appreciated some of his work in the past two years; notably, they don’t think they could have got a new health benefits and work terms for postal workers without DeJoy’s efforts to lobby the Republican Senators and Reps whose votes were needed.
And the various allegtions of improper personal conduct?
The article also contains material more directly relevant to this thread.
A month into the job, DeJoy made a consequential snap decision. He had learned that mail trucks were routinely leaving behind schedule, as drivers would wait for more mail to arrive. Even then, they were less than half full. DeJoy told his deputies to “run the trucks on time.” The decision was made in a style that even DeJoy’s defenders characterize as more befitting a corporate executive than a high-level bureaucrat. At first, it seemed to be going swimmingly. “I’m getting reports saying the trucks are running on time,” DeJoy recalls as he pumps his fists in the air and laughs. “Look at this—we’re doing great!” There was one problem. “Nobody’s telling me we’re not putting the mail on the trucks!”
In the private world DeJoy came from, any Board of Directors worth speaking of could easily have fired such a CEO to the plaudits of everyone in their industry.
The Time article suggests that the USPS made a quick turnaround afterward so that the election was not affected. That may be. However the title of this thread is “Did DeJoy create the USPS slow down?” That answer appears to be yes. A different article might give a better answer for whether or not the slow down was deliberate or a political decision rather than incompetence.
Encheapening the products and cutting the services are bog-standard CEO plays for (briefly) improving corporate profitability, juicing the share price, getting some adoring attention from the business press, then personally cashing out before it all comes crashing down.
But as USPS chief, there is no “cashing out”. No stock options, etc. But this guy still has to run the same tired predictable play anyhow. So where is his payoff? If it’s under the table somewhere, cui bono?
Or is he simply so limited as a manager that the one-trick pony is all there is?
Either way it’s not a good situation for the USPS nor for the country.
That’s why people appointed to government positions very often are already so extremely wealthy that they feel they can sacrifice a few years of living on their investments to get the glory of serving their country.
And a whole new set of connections, insider tips, and invitations to elite gatherings that make their after careers very pleasant indeed.
Possibly too, showing short term progress to the detriment of longer term is not limited to the private sector. I assume he was cutting costs, which was one of the goals he was given.
Some measures, like the “trucks run on time” probably was at worst no better, but more likely did have a benefit - some mail arrived on time, although other mail might experience a day’s delay. Depends how much they were waiting for. If trucks were leaving empty, the schedule was the problem. (And rigid bureaucratic inflexibility). “Nobody’s telling me…” suggests part of the problem is the reporting structure.
Not exactly. It was more that their previous plan to upgrade their fleet was weaksauce with respect to EVs (it was supposed to have been only 10% EVs). Whether that was intentional pushback, or a handout to Oshkosh, or budget-related, or something else (or a combination) was unclear. Regardless of the reason, it’s good to see DeJoy pivot to a more EV-friendly stance.