CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12434
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:56 am
 


Jonny_C wrote:
True, but in Ontario the government-run LCBO has been around for a LONG time, and it makes money, so I can't see a pressing need to change it. Privatizing it isn't going to make booze.

By that argument, the government should run everything that makes money for them. Privatizing likely would make booze cheaper, but that's not a relevant consideration. Nor is how long they've been doing it a relevant factor. Selling liquor is not the reason why we have government. Government's job is to govern and their role should be limited to that.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12434
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:57 am
 


ShepherdsDog wrote:
ummmm.... I wasn't aware that consuming any amount of tomatoes could impair your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, unlike pot.

That's irrelevant to the issue of growing and possessing pot. We have separate laws dealing with safe/sober operation of vehicles which would apply exactly the same no matter whether possession of pot was regulated or not.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:03 am
 


Lemmy wrote:
By that argument, the government should run everything that makes money for them. Privatizing likely would make booze cheaper, but that's not a relevant consideration. Nor is how long they've been doing it a relevant factor. Selling liquor is not the reason why we have government. Government's job is to govern and their role should be limited to that.


As a general principle yes. But like I said the LCBO has been government-run for a long time and there doesn't seem to be a pressing need (or an accompanying outcry) for it to be privatized.

How you figure privatization would make booze cheaper for the consumer I'm not sure.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12434
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:10 am
 


It could make it cheaper. Competition and reduced wages would provide the economic opportunity for prices to fall. But if government continued to regulate prices, obviously, then prices would not fall. Also, if government continued to be the wholesale provider to privatized retailers (like in Alberta when they privatized) then, likewise, prices wouldn't change much. On the other hand, availability, selection and convenience for the consumer would certainly be improved, as was the case in Alberta.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10717
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:16 am
 


Jonny_C wrote:

But there are all kinds of good reasons why some people can't or don't want to aspire to a whole lot more than what they've got - whether age, situation, capability, whatever - and as long as they're good, reliable workers and their employer is making decent profits, they deserve a fair shake.

Your idea and mine of a fair shake probably differ, but so be it.


I think you'd consider a "fair shake" being the highest paid in the retail sector?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:30 am
 


Lemmy wrote:
It could make it cheaper. Competition and reduced wages would provide the economic opportunity for prices to fall. But if government continued to regulate prices, obviously, then prices would not fall. Also, if government continued to be the wholesale provider to privatized retailers (like in Alberta when they privatized) then, likewise, prices wouldn't change much. On the other hand, availability, selection and convenience for the consumer would certainly be improved, as was the case in Alberta.


Good points.

I was looking at it from the viewpoint that even if prices could drop as a result of privatization, the gov't would simply hike taxes to cover the gap.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:33 am
 


OnTheIce wrote:
I think you'd consider a "fair shake" being the highest paid in the retail sector?


Obviously if you knocked LCBO employees down then somebody else would be "the highest paid in the retail sector".

Then you could go after them for being paid too much. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10717
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:07 pm
 


Jonny_C wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
I think you'd consider a "fair shake" being the highest paid in the retail sector?


Obviously if you knocked LCBO employees down then somebody else would be "the highest paid in the retail sector".

Then you could go after them for being paid too much. :wink:


But nobody is knocking them down. Asking them to maintain their already high pay isn't unreasonable.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:47 pm
 


OnTheIce wrote:
But nobody is knocking them down. Asking them to maintain their already high pay isn't unreasonable.


They're trying to maintain their good pay by asking for a COLA.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10717
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:36 pm
 


Jonny_C wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
But nobody is knocking them down. Asking them to maintain their already high pay isn't unreasonable.


They're trying to maintain their good pay by asking for a COLA.


And this is where reality sets in. People aren't entitled to a COLA increase.

People definitely don't get COLA increases when their company is deep in debt, such as the Province of Ontario is.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8199
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:46 pm
 


OnTheIce wrote:
Jonny_C wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
But nobody is knocking them down. Asking them to maintain their already high pay isn't unreasonable.


They're trying to maintain their good pay by asking for a COLA.


And this is where reality sets in. People aren't entitled to a COLA increase.

People definitely don't get COLA increases when their company is deep in debt, such as the Province of Ontario is.
Just stepped in to this thread. Wondering here Icy, are you against COLAs because you don't get one or because they are just bad?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:49 pm
 


OnTheIce wrote:
And this is where reality sets in. People aren't entitled to a COLA increase.


There are a lot of things people aren't "entitled" to unless they fall under labour laws and such. Employees are entitled to a COLA if they have a union that can negotiate it.

More entitled than politicians and management who simply give themselves raises.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10717
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:07 pm
 


fifeboy wrote:
Just stepped in to this thread. Wondering here Icy, are you against COLAs because you don't get one or because they are just bad?


I'm for raises being earned due to performance.

FWIW, If I had to settle for a COLA increase, I'd barf. I work my ass off to ensure my increase is far above COL. :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10717
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:11 pm
 


Jonny_C wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
And this is where reality sets in. People aren't entitled to a COLA increase.


There are a lot of things people aren't "entitled" to unless they fall under labour laws and such. Employees are entitled to a COLA if they have a union that can negotiate it.

More entitled than politicians and management who simply give themselves raises.


Key word there, "negotiate". The problem is, these COLA increases are expected and demanded regardless of the situation. That's a problem.

You're jumping the gun a little bit in terms of management just giving themselves raises. That's not how it works at all and quite often, managers pay is directly tied to financial results.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8199
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:42 pm
 


OnTheIce wrote:
The problem is, these extracurriculars are expected and demanded regardless of the situation. That's a problem.

Now, where have I heard that before? :lol: :lol: :lol:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.