Because we're afraid of having something like the post office in the private sector.

It is really hard to fire federal employees, even if they are drunk on the job, make racist comments about customers, call their supervisors degenerates, refuse to sell stamps that are in-stock, or just hang out in the corner chatting while a line of people stretches out the door.

> I'm not sure how much it is a case of Americans tolerating it, rather than Americans lacking decent labour legislation to challenge this sort of nonsense.

Not having "decent labour legislation" is a result of "Americans tolerating it". If Americans didn't tolerate it, they'd have legal protection against it.

It has been my experience that, whenever labour laws that are favourable to the employees/designed to protect the employees, someone will protest it because it can be abused by employees. Of course, laws that protect people can be abused; I don't doubt that there are people who are out to game the system for all it's worth. But how come they never consider the flip side of employee protection laws; that the employer has more opportunity to screw the employee over when there are little to no laws protecting the employee. Aren't employers just as corruptible as employees? And they're in a position of power, to boot. An example? One of the replies you got.

I suspect such attitudes are part of the whole mindset; corporations first, then the rest of us mooching, non-job-creators.

I think by labor law you mean socialism, maybe communism.

No, I don't. I mean laws governing the relationship between workers and employees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_law Do you think that placing legal reins on employers' ability to do whatever they want with their employees is akin to socialism?

I had hoped that adding communism made the intention of my maybe too subtle post more obvious.

Regardless of whether you're mocking the American Political Right or you're a member, the post is at best a weak firebrand. I still don't think I understand what were you attempting to add to the discussion.

It is, of course, not communism unless there are communes involved. But I suspect you don't actually know what either "socialism" or "communism" means.

Edit: Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case I remind you of Poe's Law.