[SFDXA] The War Against The IRC - eHam

[Bill]

The War Against The IRC
- Reg Beck, VE7IG on November 2, 2015 on eHam:

A couple of years ago a W DXer contacted me by email and told me he was 
unable to buy IRCs anymore and asked me to buy some for him here in 
Canada where they are still sold in the post office. I had been on 
several IOTA island trips and had plenty of IRCs at that point and was 
used to buying them from QSL managers so had not asked anyone at Canada 
Post about them and was surprised to find the cost was $5.00 per IRC, 
I'm not sure if this price has increased since then but wouldn't be 
surprised if it has. When I passed this information on the DXer must 
have thought I was trying to rip him off because I never heard from him 
again. $5.00 is almost twice the cost of Canadian international postage. 
What is going on here?

I emailed the officer at the Universal Postal Union who is in charge of 
IRCs and asked him about them. He told me every country signatory to the 
UPU must redeem an IRC as per the statement found on the back of the IRC 
-- "This coupon is exchangeable in any country of the Universal Postal 
Union for the minimum postage for an unregistered priority item or an 
unregistered letter sent by air to a foreign country." Signatory 
countries are not required to sell IRCs but are required to exchange 
them as members of the UPU.

I have not contacted any governments asking them about their stand on 
IRCs but have had several discussions with other amateurs about their 
experiences with them in their countries. Recently some countries, 
including the USA and Great Britain have stopped selling IRCs. Some 
amateurs in those countries have been told by clerks in their post 
offices that they do not handle IRCs any longer when the amateur tried 
to exchange the IRC for postage and the amateur was unable to make the 
exchange. You can understand the reluctance of amateurs towards 
accepting IRCs when they have this experience in their post offices. A 
VK amateur told me the clerks at his post office would not handle them 
and he had to wait for the manager who was often not there when he tried 
to exchange IRCs for postage. The manager, when present, would make the 
exchange but not in a friendly manner, grumbling and complaining the 
whole time. That would turn anyone against IRCs. In fact, I feel this 
experience is quite common. Are the postal authorities purposely not 
training their clerks to redeem IRCs?

I've had to train the postal clerks in the local post office and the 
sub-post office myself.
Canadian post offices have computerized tills that have a button that 
lets them redeem IRCs. Few of them knew how to do it but most of them 
have learned when I pointed out the procedure. They never took my word 
for it however, but found a more senior clerk who knew how and they 
figured it out together. What a reluctance there is to accept a 
never-seen-before slip of paper in place of real money.

On one Saudi Arabian amateur's QRZ.com page there was a statement that 
he would not accept IRCs because they were illegal in his country. I'm 
not sure where he received this information but the UPU agent told me 
that Saudi Arabia is a signatory of the UPU agreement and therefore must 
exchange IRCs for postage.

I was told by a German amateur that his post office HATED IRCs and he 
would not try to redeem them and at any rate one IRC would only purchase 
a flimsy letter form with no possibility of adding a QSL card. Again I 
am not sure if this is correct but that was his impression when dealing 
with his post office clerks. Some amateurs in various countries ask for 
2 or more IRCs per QSL so maybe their situation is similar.

Many DXpeditions and foreign amateurs are now using OQRS -- online QSL 
request-- using PayPal individually or through Club Log. But there are 
many others who still request QSLs via mail, direct or bureau. IRCs have 
been a good way to fight postal theft when using direct mail to obtain 
QSLs. Putting green stamps (US dollars) in envelopes often ensures the 
envelope does not reach its destination or if it does there are no green 
stamps inside when it arrives.

I have a mental cartoon that has three postal clerks in uniform with 
peaked caps standing around looking at an envelope on a sorting table 
that has several green stamps sticking out. One of them reaches for it 
but another one says, "Hey, its my turn, you got that one last week!"

It is my personal feeling that postal and other government officials in 
various countries have taken an unofficial stand against IRCs, either 
from the idea they are directly losing money on them or that the 
bureaucratic processes necessary to handle them takes up too much time 
also costing money. So they are making it as difficult as possible for 
people to exchange them. Possible methods:

1. Refusing to sell them (which they can do legally as signatories of 
the UPU agreements) on the basis they are no longer used so the clerks 
will not accept them either.
2. Simply not training clerks to redeem them.
3. Raising the price to unreasonable amounts where if anyone is stupid 
enough to buy one they take in double the cost of ordinary postage.
4. Amateurs are possibly, or have been, the majority of users of IRCs so 
redefining the minimum postage you get to make it difficult or 
impossible to send a QSL card with that amount.
5. Spreading the myth that the left hand box on an IRC must have a 
cancellation or impression from the country of origin and refusing to 
exchange those that do not when the message in that box (in French, the 
language of the UPU) says "(faculative)" meaning optional.
6. Telling their citizens that IRCs are illegal.

At any rate many QSL managers and individual amateurs in foreign 
countries are now refusing to accept IRCs and the amateur fraternity is 
losing one of the best ways we had to pay for return postage when 
applying for a direct QSL.

Unfortunately it is politicians and their representatives who sign 
international agreements but it is bureaucrats and ultimately citizens 
who have to deal with the results.

Article and Comments:
http://www.eham.net/articles/35140