CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:28 pm
 


Jonny_C wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
Either way, you're incorrect. Management at the LCBO don't have the authority to give themselves raises.


Apparently they don't need it.

See what you can make of the LCBO management compensation mess.

Two examples:

Robert Downey
Senior Vice President, Sales & Marketing
Base salary 178,900
Bonus rate 30%
Bonus amount $53,670
Total salary (as per base + bonus) $232,570
Actual salary $245,666.04
Salary in excess of base + bonus $13,096.04

Paul Forsyth
District Manager
Base salary $105,800
Bonus rate 12%
Bonus amount $12,696
Total salary (as per base + bonus) $118,496
Actual salary $149,828.02
Salary in excess of base + bonus $31,332.02

http://socialmediasnews.wordpress.com/2 ... than-ever/

Quote:
A few examples don't set the bar for all 'management'. You're generalizing.


Nor does your statement, "That's not how it works at all and quite often, managers pay is directly tied to financial results", hold the water you think it does.


Do you know what these guys do? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what has to happen for them to hit their respective bonus percentages? I'm guessing not because you initially claimed they can give themselves raises.

It's quite easy to sit back and look at salaries without knowing the duties and responsibilities of the person you're talking about and claim they are high.

At this point, I'm guessing you'll turn that on me asking me how I can judge the normal LCBO worker without knowing what they do. That said, my best friend and his wife are both full-time LCBO workers and her father is a retail manager at our local LCBO.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2103
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:53 pm
 


You missed the point entirely. I even bolded the parts for you that show how easy it is to play a shell game with executive compensation.

I didn't even claim the compensation was high for these people.

But you'd rather focus on the poor bastard who hopes his union can negotiate a 2% COLA clause for him on his $25 K, and deny that he's got good cause to want it.

I guess you consider yourself management; the only people who are worth what they're paid.

I think you can have the last word; this has become (not unexpectedly) really tiresome and unproductive.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:13 am
 


Jonny_C wrote:
You missed the point entirely. I even bolded the parts for you that show how easy it is to play a shell game with executive compensation.

I didn't even claim the compensation was high for these people.

But you'd rather focus on the poor bastard who hopes his union can negotiate a 2% COLA clause for him on his $25 K, and deny that he's got good cause to want it.

I guess you consider yourself management; the only people who are worth what they're paid.

I think you can have the last word; this has become (not unexpectedly) really tiresome and unproductive.


I love how you play these little games when clearly, this issue isn't your forte.

You didn't outright claim their salary was high, you implied it with your "Apparently they don't need it." in regards to giving themselves a raise. A claim you made that was completely false.

I'm not only focusing on the "poor bastard", I'm focusing on the issue at hand which happens to be an existing contract issue for the workers, not managers.

You're trying to say that I don't think these workers are worth their pay which is not the case. What I'm saying is, they need to be realistic with their contract demands taking everything into consideration, not just their own personal needs for a raise.

The only reason it's been tiresome and unproductive for you is because you've jumped into a post that you really have no experience with and when you continue to swing and miss, I can see how that would be considered unproductive on your part. :D


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14092
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:20 pm
 


The only reason I support LCBO remaining a public corporation is that it contributes $1.6B a year to public revenues, which is $1.6B less that taxpayers don't have to contribute. I can't imagine a scenario where Ontario agrees to cancel it's socially responsible pricing policy or allow later hours of alcohol sales. Also, Alberta saw the price of booze INCREASE when they privatized.

FUN FACT: LCBO is the world's largest single purchaser of alcohol. That allows them to get significant wholesale discounts (although the AG thinks we could get better discounts). Private purchasers wouldn't have this bulk purchase discount available. As it is, LCBO appears to be moving towards more "embedded" operations, where a LCBO kiosk is set up inside a local grocery store, improving convenience.

Basically, I don't have a problem with the price of booze or my access to it. People know when their booze retailers close (there are mobile apps and websites dedicated to the subject) and they stock up accordingly. The fact that people can't buy booze after 2am or buy a mickey with the loose change they find in their car's ashtray is probably a good thing.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:27 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:

FUN FACT: LCBO is the world's largest single purchaser of alcohol. That allows them to get significant wholesale discounts (although the AG thinks we could get better discounts). Private purchasers wouldn't have this bulk purchase discount available. As it is, LCBO appears to be moving towards more "embedded" operations, where a LCBO kiosk is set up inside a local grocery store, improving convenience.


Significant wholesale discounts and significantly higher prices. Given the LCBO's purchasing power, prices should be considerably lower.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Anaheim Ducks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 176
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:35 pm
 


socially responsible pricing policy = just another tax grab


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:38 pm
 


OnTheIce wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:

FUN FACT: LCBO is the world's largest single purchaser of alcohol. That allows them to get significant wholesale discounts (although the AG thinks we could get better discounts). Private purchasers wouldn't have this bulk purchase discount available. As it is, LCBO appears to be moving towards more "embedded" operations, where a LCBO kiosk is set up inside a local grocery store, improving convenience.


Significant wholesale discounts and significantly higher prices. Given the LCBO's purchasing power, prices should be considerably lower.


So people buy even more booze and we have more social problems? Why do you want people to have this drug cheap but are so against other drugs being even legalized? The price is set in part to discourage drinking and bring in maximum revenue. And the govt will never give up the ability to tax booze. If somehow, in the unlikely event, private distributers were able to lower pices the govt would just raise taxes. As they should.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:46 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
The only reason I support LCBO remaining a public corporation is that it contributes $1.6B a year to public revenues, which is $1.6B less that taxpayers don't have to contribute. I can't imagine a scenario where Ontario agrees to cancel it's socially responsible pricing policy or allow later hours of alcohol sales. Also, Alberta saw the price of booze INCREASE when they privatized.

Not really. Booze prices didn't rise after privatization. Privatization increased selection, meaning there were more high end products available. That led to an increase in average price. But prices for most products remained about the same. Prices of some products fell.

Also note that government revenues didn't fall in Alberta after privatization. The province still collects excise (and in Ontario, would still collect sales tax as well) on liquor and is still the wholesaler, so they get their cut before the booze even heads out to the privatized retailer.

I still view this a a moral, philosophical issue. It's not the purpose of government to sell liquor. The biggest reason our governments are such clusterfucks is that they're conglomerates. How can we expect them to be good at what they do when there's so many goddamn things that they do? Private business learned way back in the 1980s that conglomerates are inefficient. Specialization breeds efficiency. When our government is involved in the liquor trade, casinos and gaming, running railways and public transit, power generation, hospitals, schools, etc, etc, how can we expect them to be good at any of it?

There's a ton of research supporting the benefits of privatizing the liquor trade. In most cases, not just in the liquor industry, privatization is the preferred scenario. Some important works on privatization, in general, include:
"Privatization: An Economic Analysis" - J. Vickers & G. Yarrow, 1988, MIT;
"The Impact of Privatization: Ownership & Corporate Performance in the UK" - S. Martin & D. Parker, 1997, Rutledge;
"International Handbook on Privatization" - ED: D. Parker & D. Saal, 2003, Edward Elgar;
"The Interdependence Between Ownership Status and Market Structure: The Case of Privatization" - C. Fershtman, Tel Aviv, in Economica (57).


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2103
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:53 pm
 


Lemmy wrote:
I still view this a a moral, philosophical issue. It's not the purpose of government to sell liquor. The biggest reason our governments are such clusterfucks is that they're conglomerates. How can we expect them to be good at what they do when there's so many goddamn things that they do?


I'm rather neutral on privatization, but you do make a good case for it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:11 pm
 


andyt wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:

FUN FACT: LCBO is the world's largest single purchaser of alcohol. That allows them to get significant wholesale discounts (although the AG thinks we could get better discounts). Private purchasers wouldn't have this bulk purchase discount available. As it is, LCBO appears to be moving towards more "embedded" operations, where a LCBO kiosk is set up inside a local grocery store, improving convenience.


Significant wholesale discounts and significantly higher prices. Given the LCBO's purchasing power, prices should be considerably lower.


So people buy even more booze and we have more social problems? Why do you want people to have this drug cheap but are so against other drugs being even legalized? The price is set in part to discourage drinking and bring in maximum revenue. And the govt will never give up the ability to tax booze. If somehow, in the unlikely event, private distributers were able to lower pices the govt would just raise taxes. As they should.


I can see why you want wages increased since you'd boost the sin taxes through the roof. Higher taxes on booze drugs, junkfood, etc.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:26 pm
 


It's a win win - less poverty, better health. Gotta balance sin taxes with the black market tho.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:38 pm
 


andyt wrote:
It's a win win - less poverty, better health. Gotta balance sin taxes with the black market tho.


How do you figure? You only have less poverty if people don't opt for the sins and taxes.

Unrealistic.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14092
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 8:57 am
 


Quote:
Significant wholesale discounts and significantly higher prices. Given the LCBO's purchasing power, prices should be considerably lower.


The profit margin goes to the general revenues of the province, (see: $1.6B profit) which is $1.6B that taxpayers don't have to contribute. Would you rather that $1.6B be charged to all Ontarians through the tax system?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14092
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:33 am
 


Quote:
Private business learned way back in the 1980s that conglomerates are inefficient. Specialization breeds efficiency. When our government is involved in the liquor trade, casinos and gaming, running railways and public transit, power generation, hospitals, schools, etc, etc, how can we expect them to be good at any of it?


1) This comment doesn't make any sense. The people who work in the Ministry of Health are Health specialists. The people who work in the Ministy of Transportation are Transportation specialists. You speak as though all of these organzations are run by the same group of non-expert generalists. It's not as though there is a department that processes Air Safety certificates, Liquor Licenses and drug patents in the same day. These are all done by different agencies with their own experts - most of whom got their jobs by developing their expertise in the private sector. Furthermore LCBO is an arms-length enterprise - in many ways like a private corporation that just happens to be owned by the government - it's run by its own executives not the Deputy Ministers of a Department, it has its own internal corporate rank structure, etc. It reports to a Board of Directors, not a Minister...the Board reports to the Minister of Finance.

2) I don't know where you get that conglomerates are on the decline in the Private Sector, if anything M&A activity, "vertical integration" etc seem to be at an all-time high.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
Profile
Posts: 32460
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:38 am
 


Because they are a monopoly they don't have to pass any bulk buying and in Ontario they don't. When traveling out west to Alberta I found prices generally a bit higher for wine and spirits. A bottle of wine was always $1-$2 more in Alberta, unless it was on sale but the sale was never that great. After seeing that I really don't think making it private is going to be good for the consumer. Loads of tax money back to Ontario now.


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



cron
 
     
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.