It really is a snake pit.
It sure can be if they really follow things to the letter. My one post office was in a deli. The actual "office", was a 10x15 room with a door at one corner, and the only access to the office was through the deli.
My PO Box was outside the office, in the deli proper, along a wall, behind the tater chip racks. So when was I in the post office and when was I not? Was I in violation facing my box, getting my mail? How about when I turned around and was buying chips?
This was also the first point I heard that the one cite applied to the postal employees, in this case, my postmaster buddy, who was the "only" office personnel there, along with a couple of rural carriers, and the other, the general public, in the public portions of the "office". In this case, a 6x10 spot on the publics side of the counter, and boxes outside the door.
Now, again I ask, are the contradictory cites done on purpose, and there to simply allow for "interpretation", as needed? Why else would they blatantly post conflicting cites? I guess my two postmaster buddies, who were running that, and another office (similar set up to the deli) were just bumbling government employees who didnt understand the company rules either. Although when you think about it, their version, makes perfect sense. Then again, perfect sense and the government, are the true oxymoron, eh?
From Franks court ruling, it appears that they are going with the "employee" version, so I suppose they need to change all those signs. Not sure what that will do to the tater chip business though.
Hmmmm, is the fat boy in the corner of the isle eating chips a postal inspector waiting to pounce? Or is he just a fat boy eating chips and reading the bulletin board? Mmmm, government rules and the Stasi.