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

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

    From:       (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_Z0lMctt8oT').innerHTML = output; //]]>
    Subject:     Quotes from Postal Commission report
    Date:     February 14, 2007 7:23:11 PM MST
    To:       (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_wHWcApdd9V').innerHTML = output; //]]>

Here are some selected quotes from the report:

"Once the conclusion has been reached that the Postal Service should remain a public
institution, an urgent need arises to modernize and clarify the mechanism that
finances its operations--the postal monopoly.

A great deal of confusion exists today, even at the Postal Service, about the true extent
of its scope. This confusion is understandable considering much of the nation's
postal monopoly law dates back to 17th century England and is virtually untranslatable
in the modern environment."  (p.X)

"The Postal Service employs approximately 843,000 people, making it the second largest
workforce in the U.S. Its jobs are highly coveted. As of July 2001, the Postal Service
had a backlog of some 400,000 job applicants and virtually no turnover. Contributing
to the Postal Service's ability to recruit and retain employees is the special status within
the Federal government of postal workers, who enjoy the right to collectively bargain.
The Postal Service is also required by statute to compensate employees at a level comparable
to the private sector. In addition, postal employees have among the most attractive
benefits packages in the nation." (p.XV)

Critical to this effort, however, is the ability of management and labor to work constructively
together to determine the right size of the postal workforce and to ensure appropriate
flexibilities in its deployment. Both are significant issues. More than $3 out of every
$4 in Postal Service revenues go to cover the costs of current and retired postal employees.
Of the approximately $92 billion in debt and unfunded obligations the Postal Service is
struggling with today, more than $48 billion is due to the costs of retiree health benefits alone.
Far more Far more than individual benefits, the size of the workforce determines the costs of the
workforce. Therefore, getting the right size workforce is the critical issue when it comes
to controlling the costs of the workforce and upholding the Postal Service's ability to
compensate its employees in a manner competitive with the private sector. Fortunately,
there is a significant attrition opportunity, with some 47% of current career employees
eligible for regular retirement by 2010 that can help guide the rightsizing of the
workforce in the least disruptive manner possible."  (p. XV)

Gradual Displacement of Mail Volume (billions)
2002 2007 2012 2017
First Class 102.4 98.7 90.5 81.0
Priority 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Periodicals 9.7 9.5 9.1 8.7
Standard Mail 87.2 97.1 98.2 88.1
Package Service 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2
International 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Other government 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total 202.8 208.9 201.5 181.7   (p.5)

The Mailbox Monopoly: Current
Law
"Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits any
mailable matter such as statements of accounts,
circulars, sale bills, or other like matter, on
which no postage has been paid, in any letter
box established, approved, or accepted by the
Postal Service for the receipt or delivery of mail
matter on any mail route with intent to avoid
payment of lawful postage thereon, shall for
each such offense be fined under this title" (18
U.S.C. § 1725).  (p.25)

While the Postal Service should become more businesslike, it remains a
government entity. Private carriers have no U.S. Treasury to borrow
from at favorable rates, no monopoly markets to reliably generate more
than 75% of operating revenues and no government exemption from
most taxes and laws imposed on private enterprises. Given that
distinction and the Postal Service's presence in contested markets, it has
a special duty to ensure it does not wield its monopoly and government
privileges unfairly against companies that have no such advantages. (p.67)

The challenge today, however, is far more complex. Postal workers enjoy special
status within the Federal workforce. They are granted the right to negotiate wages,
hours, and workplace conditions through collective bargaining. The 1970 Act was
debated and enacted against the dramatic backdrop of the first major strike of Federal
workers in U.S. history, involving approximately 152,000 postal employees in 671
locations. The strike was particularly paralyzing to business in New York City, the
country's financial center. The strike was over shortly after it began, and in 1971, the
U.S. government signed the first comprehensive Federal labor contract ever achieved
through collective bargaining. The ongoing right to collective bargaining (absent the
option to strike) was a key outcome, in addition to language in the 1970 Act requiring
the Postal Service to offer compensation to employees that is comparable to the
private sector. (p.108)

The Postal Service Pays More than 76% of its Revenues to Employees
The Postal Service employs approximately 843,000 people in both career and noncareer
positions (Exhibit 6-1), making its workforce more than twice the size of the
United Parcel Service and more than four times the size of FedEx. All tallied, the
Postal Service's workforce as of 2002 was second in size only to Wal-Mart in the
United States and was the fourth largest civilian workforce in the world (Exhibit 6-2).
Approximately, one out of every three civilian employees of the U.S. government
works for the Postal Service.3 Given these facts, it comes as little surprise that more
than $3 out of every $4 earned by the institution in Fiscal Year 2002--some $51.5
billion of $66.5 billion--went to pay the wages and benefits of its employees.4
Unlike their private-sector counterparts, however, total compensation costs are largely
outside management's control. Benefits are effectively set by statute. Costs for retiree
health care and pension plans are skyrocketing for all employers, and the Postal
Service has unfunded obligations for retiree health benefits of approximately $48
billion.5 Yet retiree health care and pension benefits are effectively "off the table" of
collective bargaining.  (p.110)

In sum, these benefits accounted for just under $20 billion of the $51.5 billion the
Postal Service spent on its employees in Fiscal Year 2002--almost $1 out of every $3
the Postal Service spent in that fiscal year.13 A lack of negotiating authority with
respect to these costs would be intolerable to most private-sector companies. They
should be brought within the collective bargaining process at the business-oriented
Postal Service, as well. (p.118)

Nearly half a million Americans today are retired postal workers. As a result, pension
and retiree health benefits alone comprise $6 billion of the annual $12 billion the
Postal Service pays out in fringe benefits.16 As pension and health care costs skyrocket
for all employers, the Postal Service is not alone in its need to manage this large
liability effectively. Postal Service employees, too, have a stake in this effort. Particularly
given the fact that more than 45% of the Postal Service's career workforce is
within a decade of the minimum retirement age (Exhibit 6-3), involving these
benefits in the collective bargaining process will ensure that the health care needs of
future postal retirees are adequately addressed as the Postal Service works to control
and manage this large category of expense.  (p.123)

Thank goodness that I am not the only one who considers postal junkmail an environmental offense.  

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

So it's all right to deliver junk mail because it's printed on recycled paper and can be recycled. Funny, I was under the impression that 'Recycle' actually came third on the slightly old-fashioned yet still effective Triple R triangle, after 'Reduce' and 'Reuse'. So, oh horror! reducing the quantity of junk mail could actually be...better than just recycling the garbage?

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?

Sorry... couldn't resist:)

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.

I am VERY aggressive about fighting junk mail.  Back in the 80s, in addition to getting on all the stop-the-mail lists, I started returning all junk mail sent to me in their own business-reply envelopes to let them know how little I wanted their mail.  This is very effective because using their BREs really drives up their costs.

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.

Actually email spam filter.
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 :)