LCBO for sale says Liberals.

[ironstone]

One of the things that endears me to you is your proven ability not to learn anything> I have already pointed out that LCBO clerks don't make 30 and hour and the starting wage is already around 15 and hour.

Does anyone know what the high end of the LCBO salary range is?I mean the true figure when you factor in the usual extremely generous government benefits like lot's of sick leave and the golden pension plan.Anything run by governments is usually done at much higher cost than need be.

The private sector could probably do it better.

[Michael Hardner]

Does anyone know what the high end of the LCBO salary range is?I mean the true figure when you factor in the usual extremely generous government benefits like lot's of sick leave and the golden pension plan.Anything run by governments is usually done at much higher cost than need be.

The private sector could probably do it better.

The last sentence in the post before yours is:

As I pointed out before, the union doesn't go away.

[fellowtraveller]

As I pointed out before, the union doesn't go away.

Sure it does, or at least it does for the LCBO retail operations. They can try and sign up the employees at new owners locations, but there won't be any govt employees left at them.

. All the AB store employees were union members, nothing except political will and lack of spine prevents the govt of Ontario from making the entire operation redundant.

Edited January 18, 2010 by fellowtraveller

[Michael Hardner]

Sure it does, or at least it does for the LCBO retail operations. They can try and sign up the employees at new owners locations, but there won't be any govt employees left at them.

. All the AB store employees were union members, nothing except political will and lack of spine prevents the govt of Ontario from making the entire operation redundant.

From my knowledge of labour law, and of Ontario, that won't be happening here.

[fellowtraveller]

From my knowledge of labour law, and of Ontario, that won't be happening here.

So Chrysler, GM and untold others can trim or eliminate operations in Ontario at will, but LCBO cannot? How interesting. How unlikely. It simply takes a level of spine that Mr McGuinty does not have.

[Michael Hardner]

So Chrysler, GM and untold others can trim or eliminate operations in Ontario at will, but LCBO cannot? How interesting. How unlikely. It simply takes a level of spine that Mr McGuinty does not have.

Here you go:

Where an employer who is bound by or is a party to a collective agreement with a trade union or council of trade unions sells his, her or its business, the person to whom the business has been sold is, until the Board otherwise declares, bound by the collective agreement as if the person had been a party thereto

Ontario Labour Relations Act

[fellowtraveller]

which does not cover circumstances where the LCBO simply abandons the retail side of the business, sells the buildings(whuich is the only real thing of value if they retain the wholesale side)m, and starts taking business license applications for the retail sale of alcohol.

It doesn't matter anyway, the govt can simply change the Act with legislation if they choose to do so. The sale or dissolution of retail operations is administrative detail, what is missing is first the common sense and secondly the courage to do it.

It is unlikely this is high on the agenda for McGuinty anyway.

I'm just saying your objections are bogus, more ideology interfering with an easy business decision.

Why haven' they enacted controls on who can sell bread in Ontario. Surely it is a dangerous product that only civil servants can handle responsibly?

[fellowtraveller]

Oh, forgot one option: just let the collective agreemnt expire, then nobody is 'bound'.

Then dump retail and let the private sector do it.

[Michael Hardner]

which does not cover circumstances where the LCBO simply abandons the retail side of the business, sells the buildings(whuich is the only real thing of value if they retain the wholesale side)m, and starts taking business license applications for the retail sale of alcohol.

I guess so. But if they want to start including more than the buildings - for example the stock, the equipment, software etc. then they're in a pickle.

It doesn't matter anyway, the govt can simply change the Act with legislation if they choose to do so. The sale or dissolution of retail operations is administrative detail, what is missing is first the common sense and secondly the courage to do it.

Nice use of "common sense". Even the awful Mike Harris didn't have the guts to really reform labour legislation before he got turfed, so it's unlikely McGuinty would.

It is unlikely this is high on the agenda for McGuinty anyway.

I'm just saying your objections are bogus, more ideology interfering with an easy business decision.

Why haven' they enacted controls on who can sell bread in Ontario. Surely it is a dangerous product that only civil servants can handle responsibly?

I'm just saying I don't see any big win for Ontario here, and lots of potential chaos. I'm not a big fan of large change, having seen what happened when the Tories tried it. The Liberals, while they couldn't be worse at managing things than Harris was, tend to run everything to make everybody happy - which even you must admit will lead to disaster here.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh, forgot one option: just let the collective agreemnt expire, then nobody is 'bound'.

Then dump retail and let the private sector do it.

That's pretty good too, especially if you want to have no liquor sales in Ontario for many months.

[fellowtraveller]

But if they want to start including more than the buildings - for example the stock, the equipment, software etc. then they're in a pickle.

Software? Why would a couple of thousand Mom and Pop operations have any in terest in some bloated corporate software? The stock belongs to the LCBO wholesale division, they will sell it to the new retailers of course. The euipment? What equipment does a liquor store have? A couple of old pallet jacks and some shelves? Worth very little to anybody.

That's pretty good too, especially if you want to have no liquor sales in Ontario for many months.

Why wouldn't you have liquor sales for a couple of months. The devolvement of a completey non-essential service would not come as any surprise to anybody, a years notice would suffice.

Note that a number of the old govt liquor stores in AB, particularly in small towns, were bought by former employees and reopened as private stores.

Not everybody treasures a lifetime as a cashier, business owner appeals to some.

[Michael Hardner]

Software? Why would a couple of thousand Mom and Pop operations have any in terest in some bloated corporate software? The stock belongs to the LCBO wholesale division, they will sell it to the new retailers of course. The euipment? What equipment does a liquor store have? A couple of old pallet jacks and some shelves? Worth very little to anybody.

Ok.

Why wouldn't you have liquor sales for a couple of months. The devolvement of a completey non-essential service would not come as any surprise to anybody, a years notice would suffice.

Note that a number of the old govt liquor stores in AB, particularly in small towns, were bought by former employees and reopened as private stores.

Not everybody treasures a lifetime as a cashier, business owner appeals to some.

It just seems to me that you have a lot of things to time - deregulation of sales, sales of property and inventory, and challenges from labour. I don't see it going well, if you have a deadline like that in place and labour not cooperating - all under the political spotlight.

[ironstone]

This whole argument is not about providing more choice for Ontario drinkers,or about what is best for hard hit Ontario taxpayers,this is really about protecting highly payied public servants doing work that is in no way,shape or form,rocket science.

This is a red herring from Dalton,nothing more.It will never happen.

[Wild Bill]

This whole argument is not about providing more choice for Ontario drinkers,or about what is best for hard hit Ontario taxpayers,this is really about protecting highly payied public servants doing work that is in no way,shape or form,rocket science.

This is a red herring from Dalton,nothing more.It will never happen.

I disagree. It might happen!

I think some folks are missing the real point. It doesn't matter if the LCBO is profitable or not or whether going private might make it more efficient or provide better service. The government of Ontario really couldn't care less!

They might care about such things if it were operating at a loss, of course. Selling it would stop the drain on the public purse.

No, the real issue is that selling it into private hands would give McGuinty's government a BIG chunk of money all at once! That money could be used to take a significant bite out of the provincial deficit!

Or it could be used to bribe us all come next election. Or both!

Whatever, it must be very tempting for Dalton right now!

[fellowtraveller]

This whole argument is not about providing more choice for Ontario drinkers,or about what is best for hard hit Ontario taxpayers,this is really about protecting highly payied public servants doing work that is in no way,shape or form,rocket science.

This is a red herring from Dalton,nothing more.It will never happen.

Agree with first part in that union opposition to this sort of initiative is part of it, though politicians forget that if it is the right business decision they will gain respect from taxpayers in two ways. First, those that are not blinded by ideology will acknowledge it was the right business decision. Second, there are taxpayers who acknowledge and support a govt that can and do make hard or unpopular decisions, not just easy ones.

It is one of the biggest failings of our politicians, they refuse to make the tough decisions in fear of the electoral result. I respect somebody who stands up and tells me why they did what they did. I might still think they are wrong, but they will earn my respect for making a hard choice and sticking with it.

[Grallen]

Um.. Why are people talking about saving money by selling the LCBO?

It transfered 1.4 -billion- in dividends to the provincial government in 2008. TAXES NOT INCLUDED.

That is a 1.4 billion GAIN, --not-- a loss.

Here is the link, from the LCBO website itself to show that...

http://www.lcbo.com/aboutlcbo/media_centre/quick_facts.shtml

"$1.40 billion Dividend the LCBO transferred to the Government of Ontario for 2008-09 (excluding taxes)"

Do we want to make 1.4 billion less per year?

That is $122.69 less available to the provincial government per person, per year that they will need to make up in service reductions or in tax increases.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Grallen

[M.Dancer]

Um.. Why are people talking about saving money by selling the LCBO?

It transfered 1.4 -billion- in dividends to the provincial government in 2008. TAXES NOT INCLUDED.

If it was sold along the Alberta lines, those royalties (1.4 -billion) would still come in and the province will reap a one time benefit of selling the retail distribution wing.

The province will still remain as the sole buyer and the retailer will buy the product from the province.

[fellowtraveller]

If it was sold along the Alberta lines, those royalties (1.4 -billion) would still come in and the province will reap a one time benefit of selling the retail distribution wing.

The province will still remain as the sole buyer and the retailer will buy the product from the province.

Ed Zachary.

The Alberta model is not centered around a sale, more around the dissolution of the retail part of the business. The assets are mainly real estate. The liabilities are mainly the employees.

The fat profits stay with the wholesale wing, where they have been all along.

[Grallen]

The fat profits stay with the wholesale wing, where they have been all along.

Which would no longer be collected by the province by what I've read.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Grallen

[M.Dancer]

Which would no longer be collected by the provice by what I've read.

retail profits would no longer be collected....and they never were..they go back into operations.

The profits made from the wholesaler (the province) stay with the province.

[fellowtraveller]

Which would no longer be collected by the province by what I've read.

Link what you've read then.

Alberta did exactly what was described above, kept all the profits, lost much of the significant risk, and has much more choice for the consumers.

They'd never go back to the dinosaur days of Ontario style grog dispensing. Keeping what you have is certainly not an economic decision, but an act of political cowardice.

Edited March 26, 2010 by fellowtraveller