Talk:2020 United States Postal Service crisis

Maybe change the emphasis ?

Hello, User:SnappingTurtle, and thanks for starting this article. I have also been thinking about an article about all this postal service stuff, but I was thinking of a broader focus, primarily about voting by mail and the Administration's attempts to prevent it, with the delays being just a part of it. Do you think that approach has possibilities? I have quite a bit of information already in other articles that I could bring in here to expand and make the points very strongly. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I was thinking about a title along the lines of Mail balloting in the 2020 presidential election. That's kind of clunky, we could probably come up with something better. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd thought about that, too. I think, though, that this issue is the right focus for an article. The mail-in voting controversy encompasses other issues besides the delays. For example, the screwup in Virginia with absentee applications having the wrong return address has nothing to do with mail delays. There's obviously a lot of overlap between the two issues, but they're not quite the same. There's currently a section of a page devoted to the the current controversy: Postal voting in the United States#Expansion in 2020 election. I think that section should be expanded to its own article. SnappingTurtle (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't seen that article. I'll take a look at it. I have been adding stuff to United States Postal Service, and 2020 United States presidential election, and Donald Trump. And Louis DeJoy to some extend. Meanwhile I have added some delay-related stuff here, partly from those other articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN on this issue; it's broader than the (current) scope of this article and with how things are shaping up, more political than circumstantial. At this point, it falls squarely in the category of being a Trump administration controversy. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of overlap with other issues, but this issue is its own thing. It's not just about mail in votes, It's not just about Trump. I did categorize it as a Trump controversy. SnappingTurtle (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that's beyond the scope of this article. The Political issues section is already the longest and offers a pretty thorough explanation of Trump's involvement and the potential consequences. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 23:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Good move

The new title - "Postal Service crisis" - is much better. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree - this is far more encompassing. I'm excited to see how this page develops and expands. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How many sorting machines removed

The cited source only assets that 19 machines have definitely been removed. I've heard various estimates for how many have actually been removed but no firm numbers. SnappingTurtle (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

CNN said 671 machines were slated to be taken out.[1] The PO claim they are just being moved around, but I have seen allegations from postal workers that they were actually being dismantled and thrown in the trash. I will see if I can find that source. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Snopes article

The Snopes article on this topic is a treasure trove of information. Some of its points...

• DeJoy did own stock in USPS competitors. It's unclear if he still does.
• The delays are really happening.
• The delays are happening because of structural changes DeJoy has ordered, but not necessarily all of the delays are DeJoy's faults.
• Snopes says that it is unproven that DeJoy intended to cause delays.

In another article, Snopes confirms that mailboxes are being removed. However, it calls into question if that is anything new. The process of removing mailboxes has been going on for years. Whether or not they've been accelerating or targeted for political reasons is unclear, but there isn't any direct evidence of it.

I didn't find anything in Snopes about the removal of mail sorting machines.

Trump's stated intent

Shouldn't this article include content from Trump's Fox interview, in which he stated that his intention with defunding the USPS has been to prevent mail-in voting? That may be the crux of the issue. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 06:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• It does include one sentence "On August 13, 2020, in an interview with Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo, Trump said he was blocking emergency funding for the USPS because of his opposition to mail-in voting." but feel free to add more, both from that interview and his comments beforehand disparaging vote by mail and the USPS generally. (The latter is lacking, especially his frequent demand to raise postal rates on Amazon due to his grievances with Jeff Bezos.) Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 22:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's be careful with this issue. Not everyone is convinced that his statement was clear that he wanted to withhold funds because he objects to mail in voting. Many people (including me) feel that he was using the funds as a political bargaining chip. Also, if the page states that he is withholdings funds then it should be clear about where those funds come from, because the president doesn't have the power of the purse. SnappingTurtle (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, we can say that he stated this to be his intention. Whether he meant it or not is up in the air, but we can report what he said. He stated his intentions to be limiting voting by mail. Lets write THAT Dorkmax (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles

Phrases such as "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy" should be capitalized in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES, because they precede the name. "postmaster general" would be lowercase in the sentence "Louis DeJoy was postmaster general", but when his title is used preceding his name, it should be capitalized, as in "President Nixon". Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 16:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Not entirely correct... if the phrase is unmodified, it denotes a title, and if it is modified or reworded, it denotes an office. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 16:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hard to find

Could this article be made easier to locate? Searched USPS, then Trump USPS, then Louis DeJoy before digging through its subsection on Postmaster General and finding the link. Not knowledgeable enough yet to make specific suggestions on resolving the discussion's issue. (Also, this article doesn't seem to be classified as a BLP, or am I wrong?) Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a BLP. I will create some redirects to make it easier to find. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

Thanks User:SnappingTurtle for starting this article, it is one that is important to get right! Sadly as it stands the article has major WP:NPOV issues. Particularly the Donald Trump's involvement section where and mentions of "stealing the election" does not seem like an encyclopedic entry. The Economic issues section has vague and unsourced claims. In addition I think there should be a Reactions section to more concisely surmise comments of the VA, Speaker, protesters and so on.Mkwia (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I tried very hard to avoid WP:NPOV issues when editing this article, and removed several unsourced or non-NPOV sentences written by other editors when I encountered them. As I see it, the Donald Trump's involvement section does not currently contain any such content (the "steal the election" remark is commentary from elections experts, and described as such, not as ground truth). It does not postulate any theories or draw any conclusions with regard to Trump's intent, but rather factually chronicles his actions and statements, and offers reliable citations for each one. It also includes reaction from White House spokesman Judd Deere and the denial from Trump himself that he would order DeJoy to slow the mail. If you disagree with a particular sentence in that section, please feel free to call it out here on the talk page, or Be Bold and remove it. I do, however, agree that the Economic issues section could be made a bit less vague and add better sourcing. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 06:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked for some material to counter the "steal the election" comment, specifically an on-the-record denial from the White House or Republican leaders that Trump intended to interfere with the election, and couldn't find any. I'll keep looking, but if you can find some, please add it. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 06:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a Politico article [2] and added the sentence "DeJoy has denied accusations that the delivery delays were designed to sabotage election mail on Trump's behalf." Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 06:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Get rid of the (X-State) detail in front of US Congressmen/women

This is an unnecessary americanism which non-US users may be confused by, it's better to use the standard of just mentioning the Party, political office rank and then the name of the person, like so.

Demorat Congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi

This looks so much better and neater then a load of brakets everytime a US politician is mentioned.Theprussian (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevant split discussion

Talk:Postal voting in the United States#Split 2020 election section to new article. -- M2545 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Useful source ?

Adding this source, in case it may be of use [3]. It may contain links to better sources. Thanks.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Louisdejoy.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding to Congressional response section

Hello! I'm a USPS employee looking to improve to this article. I'm aware that my COI bars me from editing directly, and that I should make suggestions using the edit request system. You can see my COI disclosure at the top of the page. If you'd like to read through my full disclosure and/or edit history, please navigate over to my user page.

To open, I wanted to propose two new sentences to the Congressional response section. I'll put the existing copy below and highlight my suggested copy in yellow:

On August 22, 2020, the House passed a bill approving $25 billion in emergency funding for the USPS that would reverse DeJoy's changes and ban mail delays before the election. The vote was 257-150 as Democrats approved it unanimously and 26 Republicans joined them. The White House threatened a veto. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Susan Collins, but never reached the floor for a vote.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, was denied access to two post offices in Florida when she tried to conduct an inspection on September 3. The United States Postal Service cited possible Hatch Act violations and internal ethics guidelines that stipulate any candidate for political office cannot tour a post office within 45 days of an election as its reasons for turning Wasserman Schultz away.

References

My goal here is add fresh information that provides necessary context. For instance, I saw that "needs update" tag on the end of the "White House threatened a veto" sentence and figured it would be a good idea to mention that the WH didn't have to deliver on that threat, because the bill was never voted on in the Senate.

If anything I've proposed above can be improved upon, please let me know. I'm open to feedback. I'll now step aside and let independent editors do their thing. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Requests seem reasonable and referencing checks out. Best, Spencer^T•C 22:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and adding, User:Spencer! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Updating Political issues section

Hey again! Thanks again to User:Spencer for their help reviewing my proposed changes to the Congressional response section. I'm now going to suggest two updates for content under the Political issues heading. The first is adjusting the following sentence from this:

Because of the operational changes causing delays in mail delivery, the Postal Service sent a letter to 46 U.S. states in July 2020, warning each state that the service might not be able to meet that state's deadlines for requesting and casting absentee ballots.

To this:

In July 2020 the Postal Service sent a letter to 46 U.S. states, warning each state that in anticipation of a sizable increase in postal voting caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the service might not be able to meet that state's deadlines for requesting and casting absentee ballots.

References

If you read that second source, the Washington Post article, you'll see that the letter wasn't sent because of delivery slowdowns related to operational changes. Rather, the Postal Service was concerned about a big increase in mail-in voting, as many people who wouldn't normally vote by mail were planning to do so due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The second change I wanted to make was adding two sentences about the Postal Service's delivery of election materials to the end of the section, below the line about how many people voted by mail. Here's my suggested language:

A March 2021 report from the Postal Service's inspector general found that the vast majority of mail-in ballots and registration materials in the 2020 election were delivered to the relevant authorities on time. The Postal Service handled approximately 135 million pieces of election-related mail between September 1st and November 3rd, delivering 97.9% of ballots from voters to election officials within three days, and 99.89% of ballots within seven days.

References

To be totally transparent: I'm taking that language, which I wrote, from the Postal voting in the 2020 United States elections article. Before I came to the USPS Crisis Talk page, I did some work updating the Postal voting in 2020 article, following the same COI editor procedures I am here. (See the Postal Voting in 2020 Talk page for details on how that went.) I think it makes sense to include some information in this section about how the Postal Service ultimately performed, in terms of delivering election-related mail. It brings the section all the way up to date.

But obviously I need to let independent editors make the final determination on everything I'm suggesting, so thanks in advance to anyone who reviews this request. I'm around to answer questions and offer clarification, should editors need me. Cheers! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service, the WP article spends most of this time contextualizing the letter amid the operational changes, and I think that removing that piece entirely would mischaracterize the reference. In the article, I see the following quotes:

• The Postal Service’s warnings of potential disenfranchisement came as the agency undergoes a sweeping organizational and policy overhaul amid dire financial conditions. Cost-cutting moves have already delayed mail delivery by as much as a week in some places, and a new decision to decommission 10 percent of the Postal Service’s sorting machines sparked widespread concern the slowdowns will only worsen.
• DeJoy, in service changes last month, has drastically reduced overtime and banned extra trips to ensure on-time mail delivery. His wholesale reorganizations ousted several agency veterans in key operational roles. And the USPS is currently decommissioning 10 percent of its costly and bulky mail-sorting machines, which workers say could hinder processing of election mail, according to a grievance filed by the American Postal Workers Union
• DeJoy wrote in a letter to USPS workers Thursday that temporary delivery slowdowns were “unintended consequences” of his efficiency moves

That said, the article does also mention the influx of pandemic related mail-in ballots, which I agree would be a fair addition. (The ballot warnings ... were planned before the appointment of Louis DeJoy, a former logistics executive and ally of President Trump, as postmaster general in early summer. They go beyond the traditional coordination between the Postal Service and election officials, drafted as fears surrounding the coronavirus pandemic triggered an unprecedented and sudden shift to mail-in voting.). Perhaps the article could mention that the letters were drafted before such operational changes (these are mentioned previously in the Wikipedia article) and were due to concerns about increased voting.

As for the second proposed change, this seems reasonable and has been added. I am marking this as answered, but please reopen the request if you have a new proposal for the first part of your suggested change. Best, Spencer^T•C 05:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, User:Spencer! Thanks for giving my suggestion a thorough review. I really appreciate the detailed feedback. I've reopened the request above because I want to suggest some revised language, based on what you said:

In July 2020 the Postal Service sent letters to 46 U.S. states, warning each state that in anticipation of a sizable increase in postal voting caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the service might not be able to meet that state's deadlines for requesting and casting absentee ballots. In the majority of the letters, the Postal Service encouraged voters to mail their ballots no later than seven days before the general election. These letters were drafted before the implementation of operational changes that caused delays in mail delivery.

I think that gives a fuller picture of what was going on in July 2020. Basically, the letters weren't sent because of the delivery slowdown, as they were drafted beforehand, but the delivery slowdown was a relevant event unfolding in parallel. Let me know what you think! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done The revised changes seem appropriate, and have been implemented. Spencer^T•C 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Spencer! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)