after the inception of this service-it was further increased to 50 pounds. In 1931 Postmaster General Walter F. Brown recommended that the weight limit be raised to 100 pounds, but a compromise was reached to permit acceptance of parcels up to 70 pounds in weight and 100 inches in size. This uniform parcel post system has remained in effect ever since 1931 for offices of the second, third, and fourth class. However, since enactment of Public Law 199 in 1951, shipments from first-class offices-in urban areas where transportation facilities are the besthave been limited to 40 pounds and 72 inches if sent within a 150-mile radius, and to 20 pounds and 72 inches if set beyond 150 miles. In effect, these offices and their 140 million customers have been forced to accept standards which were adjudged inadequate 53 years ago. Informed postmasters realize, but the general public does not, that the restrictions imposed by Public Law 199 were not designed to improve the postal service, but rather to provide financial security for the Railway Express Agency. REA was thus permitted to siphon off the profitable cream of the parcel post business while the unprofitable dregs were left to the postal service. For 14 years we and our employees have received an unending stream of complaints-even abuse from patrons who maintain that these discriminatory restrictions are neither reasonable nor right. Consider if you will, a sampling of comments received during the past month from postmasters regarding customer reation to these restrictions: From Waldingford, Pa.: Indignation and disgust. All complained that it was a ridiculous rule. Some seemed to feel that we were being arbitrary. From Butler, Ind.: Several of our mailers thought this was one of the most unfair rulings possible. From Westminster, S.C.: Frustrating to industrial shipping departments. From Davidson, N.C.: Confusing and needless. A little too much for some of the patrons and their comment was: "Second-class service from a first-class post office." From St. Martinville, La.: Severe resentment. From Lake Orion, Mich. : Dissatisfied and disgruntled. As taxpayers and patrons there is more inconvenience. More cost to them in making more parcels. They don't like private legislation for rail and trucks. From Merion Station, Pa.: Many were angry at the inconvenience of having to take parcels home to be rewrapped. From Quitman, Ga.: Extreme annoyance. From Fulton, Miss.: We took notice of several customers walking out of the post office talking to themselves about what they thought of the postal service. From Plymouth, N. C.: Very critical as to why some post offices could accept larger and heavier parcels than others. From Cochranton, Pa.: Customers felt what was good for one should apply to all.They would like it changed back to the 70-pound limit. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, these are not isolated cases. The complaints are general. They are continuous. I would like to underscore the point that dissatisfaction is unabated after more than 14 years. Less prevalent but equally disagreeable is a condition existing in many offices throughout the country. I refer to those offices of the second class which because of their authority to accept parcels up to 70 pounds and 100 inches gain sufficient revenue to advance to the first class. When they advance they must then restrict acceptance of parcels and their revenues drop off. So they are relegated to second class. Once again, with the acceptance of heavier and larger parcels, revenue increases and the vicious cycle of from second to first to second is repeated. In Ashland, Pa., for example, this up-and-down process has occurred time and time again since 1955. Further customer discontent stems from the fact that many of the smaller first-class offices are not served by REA. The only way these taxpayers can ship large parcels is to drive to some other community. These are some of the reasons why the National Association of Postmasters has consistently, over the years, advocated the return to a uniform, standardized parcel post system which will permit acceptance of parcels up to 70 pounds and 100 inches in size at any post office in the United States. By convention mandate, this is still our position. It is noted with satisfaction that H.R. 12367 provides some relief by establishing uniform limits of 40 pounds and 100 inches for parcels mailed from one first-class office to another. For this we are grateful. We would prefer a higher weight allowance, but we regard this as a step in the right direction. The proposal to increase the size limitations to 100 inches will, we believe, reduce customer complaints. We must disagree with only one provision of the bill. We have previously testified before this distinguished committee that we feel that Congress alone should have the authority to fix rates and determine the size and weight of parcels so that equal service can be given in every post office in the United States. Gentlemen, I think that well represents the feelings of the 32,000 members of our association throughout the United States. Mr. DULSKI. Thank you. Are there any comments, Mr. Snyder, or from the other gentleman? Mr. HOUSTON. No. Mr. SNYDER. Just to reemphasize Mr. O'Toole's request in behalf of 32,000 postmasters, we feel that this is a most needed change which will be beneficial to all concerned. Mr. O'TOOLE. We have listed a few of the complaints in here, but you can see that down through the years we have thousands and thousands of complaints. These are just a few which our legislative chairman has picked up during the last few weeks. Mr. DULSKI. How much business do you think would result from this bill as a whole? Would you agree to the same figures that the Postmaster General set, 40 million?" Mr. O'TOOLE. I would think that is a fair figure. Mr. DULSKI. One important question. In New York City they do not have adequate place or space for putting the large packages as they come in now. Do you think by going into a larger packagea heavier weight-do you think the post offices throughout the country will have sufficient space to store? Mr. O'TOOLE. Well, I think, as Mr. Snyder has just said, we will always have a space problem. We are growing by leaps and bounds and we are going to continue to grow. There is no stopping point in sight. But I do think that the acceptance of parcels of that particular size won't cause any more commotion within the bounds of the Post Office then we now have. Mr. DULSKI. You have problems now. Mr. O'TOOLE. We are going to continue to have these expansion problems, not only with parcel post, but with all classes of mail and I feel this is just another problem that can be handled as well as other problems. Mr. DULSKI. We know there are problems in the Post Office. But these are larger packages. Now that means if your volume increases you will have bigger space problems. So what would happen to the large packages? Where will you be able to store those in case you have to keep them overnight? Mr. O'TOOLE. Well, No. 1, we don't have any intent to store any of these. We hope to move it out within the time limitations. This may cut down the number of packages we are now receivingwhen they cut it down-whereas now they have to make two. So that would give us added space, in the number of packages, perhaps. Mr. DULSKI. We have automated quite a few of the post offices with this new machinery. Are those machines ready to take in the larger packages? Mr. O'TOOLE. I think that they would certainly do that. I feel that we have mail sacks coming in that can carry from 70 to 100 pounds now. When you put out, for example, Reader's Digest in a sack, you will have 70 pounds of mail at least. So I feel the 40 pounds isn't going to hurt the automated system whatsoever. Mr. DULSKI. What about the size? Mr. O'TOOLE. The size-I don't see how that would hurt the conveyor system in most of these offices. I think that in most cases they are handling up to-some of the incoming parcels, as far as the length is concerned. Mr. DULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Toole. I have no further questions. Mr. O'TOOLE. Thank you for the privilege of allowing us to appear. Mr. DULSKI. Thank you. The committee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene Thursday, March 10, 1966.) PARCEL POST THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTAL RATES OF THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:10 a.m., in room 346, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Dominick V. Daniels presiding. Mr. DANIELS. The Subcommittee on Postal Rates will come to order. We will continue this morning with the hearings on parcel post. Our first witness is Mr. Patrick J. Nilan, legislative director, who is accompanied by Mr. Joseph F. Thomas, director of organization. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. NILAN, ON BEHALF OF UNITED FEDERATION OF POSTAL CLERKS, AFL-CIO; ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH F. THOMAS, DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZATION Mr. NILAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record I am Patrick J. Nilan, national legislative director of the United Federation of Postal Clerks, AFL-CIO, with headquarters at 817 14th Street NW., Washington, D.C. I am very pleased to be accompanied today by Joseph F. Thomas, director of organization of our union. Mr. Chairman, we speak in behalf of the Nation's 245,000 postal clerks for whom we are the exclusive national representative under the Federal Government's labor-management program in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia, and we appear before this committee in support of H.R. 12367, introduced by the distinguished chairman of this committee. We would like to express our appreciation to the chairman and Representatives David N. Henderson, John V. Tunney, and Charles H. Wilson, for introducing similar legislation. We are particularly pleased, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation is receiving expeditious consideration by this committee since more than 56,000 postal clerks are covering details either on a full- or part-time capacity as window clerks answering the continued complaints by individual and business patrons of the postal service concerning the existing discrimination in regard to mailing requirements of parcel post. During my 24 years of service as a postal clerk I do not personally know of any more controversial law that was passed which has adversely affected approximately 140 million Americans more than Public Law 199 of the 82d Congress, which law established size and weight limitations on parcels mailed by the American public. I remember well, Mr. Chairman, that I was a clerk in the Minneapolis post office when this law went into effect in 1952, and was not only employed on window service to the public, but also on a detail assignment as a postal services representative to try to explain to business mailers, as well as the general public, the new restrictions required by Public Law 82-199 on parcel post mails. Frankly, my experience was similar to hundreds and thousands of postal clerks during those difficult days-which have continued to date in trying to explain to parcel post mailers the discrimination established by law on the size and weight restrictions for parcel post mailed between offices of the first class as against the services for parcels mailed from other classes of post offices or rural routes. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that even today, some 14 years after the original Parcel Post Act limiting the size and weight of parcels it is still a most controversial order as far as the general mailing public is concerned. The amount of lost time, frustrations, and abuses and I want to accent "abuses"-which our postal clerks experience in dealing with the public certainly does represent an important cost item to the postal service, as well as an extremely difficult patron relationship problem for our members. We basically support H.R. 12367 and companion legislation to remove these inequities in the best interest of the mailing public, postal service, and the membership of our AFLCIO Postal Clerk Union. We agree present laws governing parcel post size and weight limitations, as well as unfavorable parcel post rates, have created a distressing paradox for the postal service which threatens the mailing public with radical increases in parcel post rates that would substantially damage the mailings of individuals who depend on parcel post service, as stated by former Postmaster General J. Edward Day to the Congress of the United States several years ago. Former Postmaster General John A. Gronouski and our present Postmaster General Lawrence F. O'Brien are to be applauded for their continuing interest in presenting proposals to the Congress to put new life and potential survival into the parcel post system for the American public, particularly as now proposed in H.R. 12367. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, we cannot urge this committee too strongly, and also the Congress, to enact this legislation into law prior to the June 30, 1966, deadline. After this date, the Post Office Department will be required to again conform to section 695 of title 31, United States Code, which in effect will require parcel post to be operated on a "pay as you go" basis without any deficiencies between rates and cost of parcel post handling. Mr. Chairman, we support the position of the Post Office Department, as documented so well by Postmaster General Lawrence F. O'Brien, which recommends that general size and weight limitations of 20 pounds and 72 inches for parcels weighing 16 ounces and over, mailed between first-class post offices more than 150 miles apart be increased to 40 pounds and 100 inches, respectively. We sincerely believe that if this section of H.R. 12367 is enacted into law, that it will finally eliminate a frustrating confusion which presently exists |