Washington state is one of a half dozen states considering legislation this year to create a "do not mail" list for residents, similar to the feds' popular "do not call" registry.
And like the telemarketing industry's cries that it would be utterly destroyed and millions of contented telemarketers would be out of a job, similar forces are mobilizing against the "do not mail" bills, including the Direct Marketing Association, the mail carriers' union, and others who argue that junk mail is simultaneously essential, irreplaceable, and innocuous.
Bollocks.
Attempting to head off the bills before they pass, junk-mail defenders argue that, like telemarketing, junk mail's only offense is it can be bothersome sometimes. But unlike dinner-interrupting telemarketing calls, they argue, no one dictates when you check the mail, therefore it can be done at your leisure, therefore it's not actually that annoying, therefore what's the big deal?
But of course, the environmental effects of junk mail are more sinister than those of a telephone call. Even if the annoyance of junk mail can be ignored, its environmental impacts can't be.
But people will try. The National Association of Letter Carriers' president, William H. Young, recently argued, as paraphrased by a direct mail news report, that "most advertising mailing is printed on recycled paper and postal patrons can recycle that mail." Well, OK then. Recycling has saved the day -- twice over -- and junk mail can't be bad if it can be recycled. So why worry?
In short because -- surprise! -- sending unwanted ads to every household in your zip code is damn wasteful. The New American Dream has been quantifying just how wasteful:
"More than 100 million trees' worth of bulk mail arrive in American mail boxes each year."
"In 2003, 5.4 million tons of catalogs and other direct mailings ended up in the U.S. municipal solid waste stream -- enough to fill over 420,000 garbage trucks."
"California's state and local governments spend $500,000 each year collecting and disposing of AOL's direct mail disks alone."
"The production and disposal of junk mail consumes more energy than 2.8 million cars."
Junk mail isn't innocuous.
But let's not ignore workers' complaints. In this case, as in so many others, it's not a matter of environmentalists vs. workers or even the environment vs. jobs. A closer look shows how they can be intertwined.
It seems the mail carrier union's main beef with a "do not mail" list is that it can impact their pay. As the Seattle Weekly explains ...
... rural carriers, unlike their metropolitan counterparts, get paid based on volume rather than the number of hours they work. Every year, an alternating sample of two or four weeks is conducted to count the number of pieces delivered on each route, determining the salary for the following year; the greater the number, the higher the salary."
This counterintuitive pay scale need not exist. Pay based on hours worked for everyone seems most sensible and doesn't needlessly tie mail-carrier welfare to ads printed on what used to be old-growth forest clogging up someone's mailbox. It would even be possible to write recommended pay-scale reforms language into the "do not mail" bills. Such a simple alteration could turn mail carriers into allies while we all work toward the goal of reduced waste.
Of course, the "do not mail" bills would continue to allow "charities, political campaigns, and organizations that have existing relationships with clients ... to send direct mail to people on the [do not mail] list." But businesses could potentially save money by only being allowed to mail to people who want to receive their offers. And while a well-run sweepstakes or two could certainly expand the ranks of people who have a "relationship" with marketing companies, "do not mail" legislation is still a decent idea.
Here's to de-junkmailing people's lives.
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Threaded
Drillbert Posted 9:10 am
02 Mar 2007
The proposed Washington "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 Washington "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.
Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel
Permalink
Drillbert Posted 9:11 am
02 Mar 2007
This site tells people about the USPS's own FORM 1500 that prevents senders from mailing anything to your address for 5 years. And, it has been upheld by a Supreme Court case that says the recipient and nobody else decides what mail is inappropriate to receive.
It is not a convenient as a "one-stop" DO NOT JUNK list, but it certainly works.
I have used Form 1500 about 80 times over three years to good effect.
The post office will not tell customers about Form 1500... but we need to!
Permalink
Drillbert Posted 9:12 am
02 Mar 2007
President Bush's Postal Commission published some very illuminating facts, such as:
The Post Office is the 2nd largest employer in the USA... their union has a strong vested interest in delivering more, not less, mail in order to keep their jobs... even when we and they know the mail is junk.
The USPS is a unique business because it has a government sanctioned MONOPOLY!
The laws governing the USPS are more than 30 years old and need updating!
Bulk mailers are not required to identify themselves on the mail pieces, so it can be practically impossible to find out who sent you the junk mail in order to ask them to stop.
The report can be viewed at this link: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/usps/pdf/ ...
Permalink
Drillbert Posted 9:16 am
02 Mar 2007
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[23]='\"';l[24]=' 116';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 110';l[27]=' 46';l[28]=' 116';l[29]=' 115';l[30]=' 97';l[31]=' 99';l[32]=' 109';l[33]=' 111';l[34]=' 99';l[35]=' 64';l[36]=' 108';l[37]=' 101';l[38]=' 104';l[39]=' 97';l[40]=' 102';l[41]=' 114';l[42]=':';l[43]='o';l[44]='t';l[45]='l';l[46]='i';l[47]='a';l[48]='m';l[49]='\"';l[50]='=';l[51]='f';l[52]='e';l[53]='r';l[54]='h';l[55]='a ';l[56]='';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[23]='\"';l[24]=' 103';l[25]=' 114';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 46';l[28]=' 109';l[29]=' 97';l[30]=' 101';l[31]=' 114';l[32]=' 100';l[33]=' 119';l[34]=' 101';l[35]=' 110';l[36]=' 64';l[37]=' 101';l[38]=' 118';l[39]=' 101';l[40]=' 116';l[41]=' 115';l[42]=':';l[43]='o';l[44]='t';l[45]='l';l[46]='i';l[47]='a';l[48]='m';l[49]='\"';l[50]='=';l[51]='f';l[52]='e';l[53]='r';l[54]='h';l[55]='a ';l[56]='
Permalink
Greta Posted 9:16 am
02 Mar 2007
It is not always easy to recycle. Most cities that I have lived in did not have a recycling center for office paper and especially window envelopes.
It requires me to collect the offensive junk and drive to a recycling center to drop it off. (Cluttering up my house/car until I have enough to justify the drive.)
And, most offensive, it is a waste of perfectly good trees!!!!
B&H Photo has cut down an entire forest to send me not 1, not 2, but 3 200-plus-page unsolicited catalogs within the last 2 months! And, for an entire year (literally), I have phoned every month requesting to be removed from Dell's monthly catalog mailing. Every time, the person with whom I speak (including supervisors) has assured me that he/she will take care of it.
I am very cautious about giving out my contact info. and always write "do not share info" on any kind of application that I complete.
Unfortunately, the "do not mail" programs don't seem to work...at least not for me. I have TWICE registered to The Mail Preference Service (MPS) program, sponsored by The Direct Marketing Association (The DMA). And, the junk mail just keeps on coming. No surprise.
Have also contacted the Postal Service and the State of Florida, neither of whom are the least bit concerned about the problem.
I consider postal junk mail (unsolicited) as trespassing. I really wish that more people were concerned about this to get a national movement organized against it. Any attorneys out there want to try a lawsuit based on the trespassing issue?
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:21 am
02 Mar 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
tico89 Posted 11:40 am
02 Mar 2007
Seriously, though, has anyone got numbers as to approximately what percentage of junk adverts have to get an answer for the company to keep mailing more? Or do the companies not actually care about whether anyone reads the ads?
Permalink
Junkk Male2 Posted 7:41 pm
02 Mar 2007
I think Dillbert has hit the nail on the head in his first post, second para.
And is certainly true that here in the UK we have similar systems already in place which are not exactly encouraged by the postal services, who can be a powerful lobby group (a lot of posties are in Unions).
But playing Devil's Advocate, I do wonder (don't know so any answers to clarify welcome) about logistics. I often do want some DM, and could care less about others. How do I register for what I want, how do those who want me to get it send it and how does the postal system vet accordingly... and who pays? I just fear a catch all that means we cease to get a source of information that can be valid and valuable. Thanks to our own Telephone Preference System I cannot call companies on the list, who rather insanely don't want to hear about anything new from people they don't know. And with ISPs like AOL we have had the sending and receipt of email communication under consideration for similar 'vetting', though it seems those that can afford to can pay their way out of it. So one could argue this may discriminate against those less able to afford it. Thin end of a wedge?
Also (same knowledge caveat applies, and bearing in mind I run a re:duction, re:use and re:pair site, hence my concern on mass censorship on e-communication, though ours, like Grist, is opt-in), I was wondering in the great global warming scheme of things how damaging recycled paper products from managed forests are, in the same way as, say, biodiesel.
Could it (shriek-proof earmuff in place) be that encouraging relatively fast growing, protected greenhouse sinks may have a place as part of the carbon capture global repertoire?
Just asking.
Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:12 am
03 Mar 2007
Naturally, in the way that ecosystems work, the parasites have evolved a defense, not sending BREs and instead sending giant postcards and slick flyers with phone numbers and websites.
I tried calling the phone numbers and demanding that the mail stop, figuring that they were paying for the call--turned out, the calls simply go to a call center where the kid has no ability to stop your mail (and no interest in doing so), and it took so long to do that it was more punishing to me than them.
Currently I'm fighting with a mailbox ads company--the kind that sends you a bunch of junk flyers and coupon inserts along with a card that says "Have you seen me?" and a picture of a missing kid or two (ADVO and others do this.) When I first got to this address, I called them and asked to be removed from their list. The lady was very nice and said she would. Now, five weeks later, I am still getting the junk--just not the card.
In other words, the Post Awful is delivering junk mail FOR FREE (because the parasite only pays for shipment by counting the number of the address cards). By cleverly continuing to supply the same number of junk inserts, the company tricks the Post Awful into doing their dirty work for nothing.
I imagine that a high-speed machine or two sorts my mail, but at the end it requires that a human notice that I don't have one of those address cards and, therefore, shouldn't get the junk. Imagine you are a carrier with a huge bin of mail to prepare (i.e., to put the junk in) and deliver.
At my old address I also tried the Form 1500 that was touted above (it's the one that lets you stop mail you consider obscene). The postmaster essentially told me that he wouldn't honor it, and I was too busy with other things to make a federal case of it. (There's no provision for them to make a distinction or override the addressee's wishes -- but, practically, you have to fight that yourself.)
What I'm contemplating now is a boycott list--every week, I'll take their junk and post the names of all the businesses that advertise in there to a website for this area and suggest that no one patronize those businesses and let them know why. That's the only avenue left that I can see.
Permalink
Drillbert Posted 11:58 am
16 Mar 2007
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
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:21 pm
16 Mar 2007
SpamBayes is really great :P
Kind of like voice recognition.
You train it by having it analyze a folder full of bad emails.
And then it customizes to you.
Can even give it stuff which technically isn't unsolicited spam ;D And have it block that too.
_
I get something like 1 spam mail a month with this thing :)
Permalink