Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

Posts around the world have been confronted with arguments that they receive competitive advantages and better treatment under domestic law than private sector operators. Independent bodies in several industrialized countries have issued recommendations urging governments to promote competitive equality principles under domestic law. While many critics urge that the playing field be leveled, they often do not take account of the many costly public responsibilities that postal operators must fulfill. The opinion reaffirms that the USPS is a federal government entity and is not subject to competition laws applicable to private sector providers. As a governmental entity, the USPS must fulfill many social policies. Unlike private sector providers in the United States, it must execute universal service obligations. Postal rates must also reflect many noncommercial considerations, and product pricing is driven by social policy as opposed to economic principles. As an employer, the USPS must observe significant, costly restrictions on its ability to set wage and benefit policies. As a purchaser of billions of dollars of goods and services, the USPS must fulfill numerous socio-economic policies that make it less able to acquire goods and services efficiently and at the lowest possible cost. The “level playing field” debate cannot be fairly understood without recognizing the counterbalancing social policy responsibilities borne by postal operators.

Posts around the world have been confronted with arguments that they receive competitive advantages and better treatment under domestic law than private sector operators. Independent bodies in several industrialized countries have issued recommendations urging governments to promote competitive equality principles under domestic law. While many critics urge that the playing field be leveled, they often do not take account of the many costly public responsibilities that postal operators must fulfill. The opinion reaffirms that the USPS is a federal government entity and is not subject to competition laws applicable to private sector providers. As a governmental entity, the USPS must fulfill many social policies. Unlike private sector providers in the United States, it must execute universal service obligations. Postal rates must also reflect many noncommercial considerations, and product pricing is driven by social policy as opposed to economic principles. As an employer, the USPS must observe significant, costly restrictions on its ability to set wage and benefit policies. As a purchaser of billions of dollars of goods and services, the USPS must fulfill numerous socio-economic policies that make it less able to acquire goods and services efficiently and at the lowest possible cost. The “level playing field” debate cannot be fairly understood without recognizing the counterbalancing social policy responsibilities borne by postal operators.

Posts around the world have been confronted with arguments that they receive competitive advantages and better treatment under domestic law than private sector operators. Independent bodies in several industrialized countries have issued recommendations urging governments to promote competitive equality principles under domestic law. While many critics urge that the playing field be leveled, they often do not take account of the many costly public responsibilities that postal operators must fulfill. The opinion reaffirms that the USPS is a federal government entity and is not subject to competition laws applicable to private sector providers. As a governmental entity, the USPS must fulfill many social policies. Unlike private sector providers in the United States, it must execute universal service obligations. Postal rates must also reflect many noncommercial considerations, and product pricing is driven by social policy as opposed to economic principles. As an employer, the USPS must observe significant, costly restrictions on its ability to set wage and benefit policies. As a purchaser of billions of dollars of goods and services, the USPS must fulfill numerous socio-economic policies that make it less able to acquire goods and services efficiently and at the lowest possible cost. The “level playing field” debate cannot be fairly understood without recognizing the counterbalancing social policy responsibilities borne by postal operators.

Posts around the world have been confronted with arguments that they receive competitive advantages and better treatment under domestic law than private sector operators. Independent bodies in several industrialized countries have issued recommendations urging governments to promote competitive equality principles under domestic law. While many critics urge that the playing field be leveled, they often do not take account of the many costly public responsibilities that postal operators must fulfill. The opinion reaffirms that the USPS is a federal government entity and is not subject to competition laws applicable to private sector providers. As a governmental entity, the USPS must fulfill many social policies. Unlike private sector providers in the United States, it must execute universal service obligations. Postal rates must also reflect many noncommercial considerations, and product pricing is driven by social policy as opposed to economic principles. As an employer, the USPS must observe significant, costly restrictions on its ability to set wage and benefit policies. As a purchaser of billions of dollars of goods and services, the USPS must fulfill numerous socio-economic policies that make it less able to acquire goods and services efficiently and at the lowest possible cost. The “level playing field” debate cannot be fairly understood without recognizing the counterbalancing social policy responsibilities borne by postal operators.

Posts around the world have been confronted with arguments that they receive competitive advantages and better treatment under domestic law than private sector operators. Independent bodies in several industrialized countries have issued recommendations urging governments to promote competitive equality principles under domestic law. While many critics urge that the playing field be leveled, they often do not take account of the many costly public responsibilities that postal operators must fulfill. The opinion reaffirms that the USPS is a federal government entity and is not subject to competition laws applicable to private sector providers. As a governmental entity, the USPS must fulfill many social policies. Unlike private sector providers in the United States, it must execute universal service obligations. Postal rates must also reflect many noncommercial considerations, and product pricing is driven by social policy as opposed to economic principles. As an employer, the USPS must observe significant, costly restrictions on its ability to set wage and benefit policies. As a purchaser of billions of dollars of goods and services, the USPS must fulfill numerous socio-economic policies that make it less able to acquire goods and services efficiently and at the lowest possible cost. The “level playing field” debate cannot be fairly understood without recognizing the counterbalancing social policy responsibilities borne by postal operators.