# USPS nailed again



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Zog said:


> US Labor Department's OSHA proposes $287,000 in fines against US Postal
> Service in Bluefield, W.Va., for exposing workers to electrical hazards
> 
> The willful violations cite the facility's failure to label electrical cabinets, properly train employees, use safety-related work practices when exposed to energized electrical parts and provide proper electrical protective equipment. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
> http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=18708


No wonder they are going bankrupt..:no:


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

We had our regular mailman crash his truck, when the brakes failed. I guess they are pretty slack when it comes to truck maintenence too.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

dronai said:


> We had our regular mailman crash his truck, when the brakes failed. I guess they are pretty slack when it comes to truck maintenence too.



Our state fined them for not getting the mail trucks emission tested. They have had many big fines over the last few years. :001_huh:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Bulldog1 said:


> Our state fined them for not getting the mail trucks emission tested. They have had many big fines over the last few years. :001_huh:


Their trucks don't have any emission stickers here.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Makes no sense. Wouldn't this fine be paid by taxpayers anyway? Fire someone instead.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

I heard most of the fines were for buildings and facilities they leased. 
Their stand along facilities are in pretty good shape with fewer equipment problems.
OSHA can beat on them because they aren't really a federal agency anymore.
They are some kind of a cost savings abomination agency.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

gold said:


> Makes no sense. Wouldn't this fine be paid by taxpayers anyway? Fire someone instead.


Yes & no.
Federal agencies are not "bound" by the laws of the land. They can be exempt when needed. They always "promise" to comply but normally don't.
Any fines that the USPS might have to pay must come from their operating account. They are the only agency that is allowed to make a "profit". 
Since the USPS is always in the red, the cost of the fines, if paid, would have to be allocated by congress. 
Since congress will never allocate them kind of funds, the fines will be excused. 

Now keep in mind that since some of the work, delivery and sorting is done by contractors at their own facilities,,, those fines will be paid for by the contractor out of their own $$$.

So who was fined and for what?
The news don't know the difference and couldn't care less about looking.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

gold said:


> Makes no sense. Wouldn't this fine be paid by taxpayers anyway? Fire someone instead.


In Florida where I am visiting, they had a news story the local government gave 50,000.00 to a Women's shelter for building a pet hotel, now the local government wants 30,000 in user fees for sewage impact.

In the government stupidity abounds.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

gold said:


> Makes no sense. Wouldn't this fine be paid by taxpayers anyway? Fire someone instead.


 
Yeah, boil it down, it's basically the U.S.A fining the U.S.A


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Yeah, boil it down, it's basically the U.S.A fining the U.S.A


Which cost the taxpayers and the users of the USPS.

A close friend worked for Dept of Agriculture, in the legal dept. Almost all their lawsuits were against other government agencies. Agency suing agency.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Fining the USPS is no different then fining Moe, Larry and Curly electric. Ultimately it is the uses of the service that actually pay the fine.





> *The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s *with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

When I was living in NC, I was in the national guard.
One day on formation, information was passed out that army vehicles were no longer excempt from weigh stations.
If you drove a 5 ton or larger, you were required to stop at all weigh stations you came to.
If you were overloaded, the state of NC would fine the state of NC!


----------



## mbednarik (Oct 10, 2011)

dronai said:


> We had our regular mailman crash his truck, when the brakes failed. I guess they are pretty slack when it comes to truck maintenence too.


I know a guy who works in a service shop here in town, and he told me everytime they change oil and service the vehicle they have to remove the rear drums and measure the wear of both the shoe and the drum among other odd things. So it seems strange to have a complete failure with that periodic of inspection. Granted it could have been a master cylinder or something else.


----------

