• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited.

Dennis Enderson, President Denver Metro Area Local, American Postal Workers Union

On behalf of the 2,200 members of the Denver Metro Area Local of the American Postal Workers Union, thank you for your editorial support with regard to Representative Gagliardi's ill advised effort to limit the distribution and delivery of Bulk Mail.

The American Postal Workers Union, for a variety of reasons, is staunchly opposed to any such effort to artificially restrict mail volume: There is no such thing as "junk mail." The United States Postal Service processes mail at a variety of rates based upon size, shape, weight, category, and delivery urgency. When she speaks about so called "junk mail," we presume Representative Gagliardi is referring to Bulk Mail, which allows for reduced postage rates based upon large volumes and various cost saving factors such as pre-sorting. This postal rate category allows anyone (including business mailers) to take advantage of reduced costs so long as they are willing to meet strict mailing requirements with regard to size, weight, content, addressing and pre-sorting prior to mailing. It is deeply insulting to postal employees to refer to any mail as "junk." All United States mail is sanctified when it enters the system and is afforded the protection of federal regulations pertaining thereto. Theft and/or destruction of any mail, including Bulk Business Mail, is a federal crime subject to severe penalties under law.

We agree that, unlike telephone calls during dinner, mail never intrudes upon one's privacy. Millions of Americans look forward to and enjoy receiving mail every day. For some, it is the highlight of their day.

There is no doubt that a lot of mail is discarded, but that in no way diminishes its relevance or significance as a part of the American culture.

We do not believe that a significant percentage of citizens would list excessive mail as an important issue. The proposed bill is a "solution" looking for a problem rather than the opposite.

Mail is not a significant environmental concern because it is biodegradable and almost one hundred percent recyclable. We assert that discarded mail takes up no more than a tiny fraction of space in landfills. Common sense indicates that magazines and newspapers (which, by the way, contain far more advertising material than Bulk Mail) are much bulkier than mail. However, we do not hear a call from Representative Gagliardi for a limit on the delivery of newspapers and/or magazines.

Only a tiny portion of identity theft is in any way related to Bulk Mail.

Most identity theft is caused by other means such as sorting through trash, physical theft of credit card information, and electronic commerce. Bulk Business Mail is much less likely to contain confidential information than First Class Mail, which the proposed bill does not seek to limit in any way.

Many, many family owned small businesses depend almost entirely upon direct mail marketing to generate business. A lot of carpenters, landscapers, florists, home cleaning services, realtors, carpet cleaners, chiropractors, dentists, roofers and countless other small businesses place low cost ads in fliers distributed by mail. Banning the distribution of such "unsolicited" mailings could destroy their businesses. There are many kinds of advertising that most people might characterize as "annoying," such as billboard, radio and television ads. Why single out direct mail for curtailment and/or elimination? (How about those folks who stand on street corners waving signs?) Doesn't the American economy depend upon advertising to keep the wheels of capitalism turning? It makes no sense to attempt to regulate only one type of advertising.

There may even be legal issues that could render such a law invalid. Mail delivery is completely controlled by federal laws and regulations. We would question whether a state has the authority to adopt a law that would put any kinds of limits on mail origination and/or delivery.

The proposed bill would exempt political mailings. How hypocritical would that be? We believe many people would say they are more annoyed by political mailings than they are by receiving discount coupon fliers from their local supermarkets (which put real money into their pockets!) Why should politicians be exempt from such a law? Aren't they "advertising" their "product" as much as anyone?

Many employees work for companies that depend upon reaching out to potential customers through Bulk Business Mail: King Sooper, Safeway, Albertson's, Qwest, and AT&T, just to name a few. Direct mailings count on only a one to two percent response rate to achieve profitability. They almost always exceed this goal, and generate lots of revenue that translates into higher wages, more job security and better benefits for employees.

There are much more pressing issues facing the state of Colorado than overstuffed mailboxes. We hope this bill will die a rapid and well deserved death. Thank you very much for your support.

READER COMMENTS

It's about time that the US Government passes legislation that forces The USPS to honor any opt-out requests received, or at a bare minimum require junk mailers like Comcast, GEICO etc. to maintain a opt-out website as well as mentioning the option on their "junk mail".

US Postal Service won’t let you refuse mail.

If the US Postal Service would abide by its own rule, each homeowner could easily stop junk mail from getting into their mailbox by putting a written notice on their mailbox expressing their preference.

The US Postal Services practices are supposed to be according to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). The DMM contains provision 508.1.1.2 that says, “Refusal at Delivery: The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for delivery.” I interpret this rule to mean that if a homeowner wants to refuse an unwanted mailpiece (i.e. junk mail), the homeowner can do so when the mailpiece is offered for delivery. More to the point – refuse it before it is put into the mailbox!

In practical application, since the postal carrier comes to homes at different times each day, the homeowner cannot be waiting at the mailbox to dialogue with the mail carrier about each mailpiece. The only realistic way to interpret 508.1.1.2 therefore is that the homeowner should post a notice on the mailbox telling the postal carrier about the homeowner’s preference. The notice to the postal service must be specific and unambiguous. For instance, a homeowner should certainly be able to write, “No mail that is not addressed to the Jones” because that does not require the postal carrier to make a subjective judgment. On the other hand, it would not be acceptable to write “no junk mail” because the definition of “junk mail” is subjective and the mail carrier cannot decide.

Unfortunately, the US Postal Service has written to me that they will NOT honor a notice refusing mail, not matter how specifically it is worded, because the postal carrier does not have time to sort through the mail at my mailbox to pick out the pieces that are not addressed to me. Therefore, the US Postal Service is passing their sorting and disposing task onto me by putting all the mail they want into my mailbox, even though this seemingly violates 508.1.1.2.

Since the U.S. Postal Service will not abide by 508.1.1.2, homeowners need to stop unwanted mail at the source (i.e. by blocking the sender from sending it). We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.

http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html

Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel

Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.

The proposed recent "Do not mail" is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing - and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?

I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!

The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ““In today's [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer's right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.

To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”

We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.

http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html

Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel

All of the polls conducted thus far show that more that 75% of the respondents would sign up for a "Do Not Mail" list. Anybody claiming that people don't think junk mail is considered undesirable is not paying attention to the facts!

The best way to advertise is to communicate with only those who are interested... the best way to eliminate those who are not interested is to let them "self-select" by opting out.

Advertisers will benefit from an OPT OUT law. Only the Post Office stands to lose... but the President's Commission on the Post Office has already published a report saying that the USPS needs to slim down dramatically... and that 47% of the USPS workforce can retire by 2010. So... cut the junk mail and retire any workers that become unneeded.

POST A COMMENT

• Democrats depriving kids of a decent education
• Don’t neglect the homeless during the summer
• CU-Boulder setting sail for the future

  State’s flagship university charts a course with input from many

• Understanding the value of energy taxes in local communities
• Nacchio and Becerra: lopsided justice
• Brown and regents should be removed, not Churchill
• New marijuana initiative has teeth
• One of the greatest tragedies of the gay movement