Protest against the LCBO -- Liquor Control Board of Ontario

[Argus]

I still cannot believe the union will walk out. Too many people are already wondering why we still have such tight government control of alcohol. Walking out may play into Hudak's hand.

I only need to pick up one or 2 more items and I am set for the summer!!!

This union hasn't had a strike in nearly a hundred years. What they are complaining about is they have people working part-time hours for ten or twelve or fourteen years, and still can't be made full time. Nor will the LCBO guarantee any amount of hours. It's a very profitable outfit, government or not, so the workers feel they can be treated better. Nothing outrageous about the union's position here.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

It's possible because the overhead won't be nearly as high. But at least it'll be more convenient.

It would vary.

LCBO has artificially inflated foreign wines by paying more than what they are worth so they can sell it for a higher price. They have some sort of restriction on how much more then can charge than their purchase price.

The cheapest beer would see no drop in price, because the cheapest price is regulated by the government but, more expensive options could drop in price.

We do have the right to not shop at the LCBO and brew our own... Can't distill but home brewing methods can still get strong drinks. Just not distilled strong (which is then watered down most of the time in mix anyways)

[Boges]

Convenience does come with a price. This past Sunday I spent $11 for 16 cans of soda at a Macs Milk I could walk to instead of going to a grocery store to spend much less.

I'm sure some brewers and wineries might get better treatment than the LCBO and the beer store than can pander the big players.

There was also news that came to light recently that the LCBO made brewers charge an inflated price because they have a fixed markup. Do you think a private company would do something so daft?

Edited May 16, 2013 by Boges

[Boges]

Here's what I don't get.

How does the Union suggest they fix the problem of part-time and casual staff? If Part-timers aren't given regular shifts then that's wrong. But if Casual staff expect a minimum number of hours then they just want casual staff to be removed.

In any retail operation, you need a mixture of full and part time staff. If a person that's regularly scheduled to work is sick or on vacation you'll either have to have the staff that's there pick up the slack or call in someone that's otherwise sitting at home watching TV.

I'm guessing the Union probably has some silliness about a minimum level of staff so the pampered full-timers don't have to work too hard, so having some casual staff available is essential.

What is the LCBO going to do during the Holidays when they bring in even more causal staff? Will those staff require regular shifts all-year round?

You know the Liberal government won't allow for more money seeing the way they handled teachers.

Got a day to go I guess.

http://www.thestar.com/life/food_wine/2013/05/15/where_to_get_booze_if_strike_hits_lcbo.html

Edited May 16, 2013 by Boges

[HurtinOntario]

The public sector unions wield far too much power in this province. If it's not the teachers, it's the LCBO, if it's not them it's the garbage men...and on and on and on.

[Guest Kenneth]

Surprise! No Strike!

[Boges]

Yeah no surprise at all. The LCBO should have let them go on strike just for those ads that called them Greedy and Heartless.

I would have loved to see this Union of overpaid clerks and stock boys stand on a picket line showing how really irrelevant they are if the government didn't allow them to have such a ridiculous monopoly on alcohol sales.

[Boges]

Deleted

Edited May 29, 2013 by Boges

[MiddleClassCentrist]

There was also news that came to light recently that the LCBO made brewers charge an inflated price because they have a fixed markup. Do you think a private company would do something so daft?

No. I'd expect the private company to take beer widely regarded as crap in the home country, and export it overseas and highly market it as a premium beer for a premium price.

Stella Artois, for example.

But, I wouldn't expect them to do what the LCBO has done at all. Disgusting economics.

Edited May 28, 2013 by MiddleClassCentrist

[margrace]

The main problem is that booze is to cheap, the sickness and court cases caused by it have to be paid for as well.

[scribblet]

Booze is too cheap - that`s a new one, never heard that before. I guess this is the same poster who doesn`t mind paying a lot more in taxes to pay for Toronto`s transportation.

[Boges]

After spending a little time in the US I realize how ass backwards this province is. Then you get a blowhard like Charles Sousa coming out yesterday saying it's socially responsible to treat adults like little children.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/10/29/ontario_rejects_call_to_sell_beer_wines_in_convenience_stores.html

Large convenience store chains will make another pitch today to allow them to sell beer and wine, but Ontario’s Liberal government says it is not interested.

The Ontario Convenience Stores Association — which includes Avondale, 7-11 and Mac’s as well as Petro-Canada, Imperial Oil and Canadian Tire — wants to sell local wines and craft beers.

Finance Minister Charles Sousa says while the Liberals plan to put LCBO outlets in some grocery stores, they won’t allow sales of beer and wine in corner stores.

Sousa says the Liberals will stick with existing plans, in part because government-run liquor stores and the foreign-owned Beer Store do a good job of keeping minors from buying booze.

Is there anyone, anywhere that believe this social responsibility crap. These are the same places that allow sales of tobacco.

We have a thread where people laud drinking craft beers that probably cost $3 plus a pop but here we are in Ontario where we have to go to government sanctioned facilities to buy legal products and pay through the teeth for it. Alcohol is at least twice the price than in the United States.

It's not about social responsibility, it's about using a government monopoly to make lots of money for an every growing government.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Boges

[cybercoma]

That's something to consider though. Alcohol sales provide a significant amount of revenue to the governments around the country. Privatization would cause deficits to the province. Then how do you explain to voters that you need to raise the HST or provincial income tax?

[Boges]

That's something to consider though. Alcohol sales provide a significant amount of revenue to the governments around the country. Privatization would cause deficits to the province. Then how do you explain to voters that you need to raise the HST or provincial income tax?

How would allowing the sales of a taxed product cause a deficit? It's expanding the availability. No one has said the LCBOs should close.

However the evidence is the privately owned Beer Store is an absolute scam, I believe, should be done away with.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/beer-store-profits-700m-yearly-from-near-monopoly-study-finds-1.1382689

The province rakes in profits from tobacco sales and it's sold in privately owned facilities. I think the consumer just wants more choice. The beer store is owned by the big boys and makes it very difficult for craft brewers to get a foothold.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Boges

[cybercoma]

I agree that we should have private sales, but that almost certainly would reduce the revenue of the LCBO. It may not cause a deficit, but it will absolutely reduce provincial revenues unless alcohol sales increase as a result. If they increase then that plays into the opponents' narrative about the horrors of privatization.

[cybercoma]

I'm just saying, we need to think about the downsides as well as the upsides when considering privatization.

[Mighty AC]

The roughly $300M profit the LCBO brings in on top of the taxes could easily be offset with a slight uptick in the sin tax itself. The slight tax increase on liquor may even be offset by lower prices due to competition.

[Boges]

Well if it's about money, then stop lying to people about social responsibility. Alcoholics are going to get their fix regardless.

It's still not terribly prohibitive to get completely drunk every night of the week.

You're just not doing it on VQA wine, single malt scotch or craft beers. People who have to drop $30 for their 12er of HobGoblin aren't the type of people that being targeted for this social responsibility scam.These policies make people who enjoy good qualities alcohol suffer.

You need only see how much the LCBO markets to realize their social responsibility line is absolute bunk. They advertise daily on the radio and produce high quality magazines and inserts in newspapers.

The truth is the LCBO is just like any other government run operation, it's inefficient and bloated. So they need to power of government to maintain their iron grip on alcohol sales.

[Boges]

The roughly $300M profit the LCBO brings in on top of the taxes could easily be offset with a slight uptick in the sin tax itself. The slight tax increase on liquor may even be offset by lower prices due to competition.

Well that's the thing. It's been proven that the LCBO has a set markup. They've even asked suppliers to increase their price so they can maintain their markup.

A private business wouldn't need to do that.

[cybercoma]

Everything is about money. Think about it, we want the gov that makes money on selling alcohol to vote against its own monopoly. It can happen, but people need to get far more pissed about it than they are.

Edited October 29, 2013 by cybercoma

[Mighty AC]

Since, the profit is easily replaceable, I'm willing to bet the main reason the government won't let go is the public sector union fight it would create.

[cybercoma]

I don't think the profit is so easily replaceable.

[Boges]

What's being proposed is allowing convenience stores, who because of dwindling tobacco use are struggling, to sell wine and beer. Right now there are private places you can purchase both beer and wine. But the availability is limited and the hours are restricted.

I fail to see how expanding the avenues where people can find these products would be a hit to government coffers.

I still think we should question why governments feel entitled to take large amounts of money at every single opportunity. Off topic, but it's become apparent that Ontario's Drive Clean program has just become a giant money grab and does next to nothing to try and make sure cars with excessive emissions stay off the road.

Are we to assume that all methods of taxation are warranted to maintain services? Especially when we all can highlight several examples of gross mis-use of taxpayer money in Ontario.

BTW the big irony of dwindling tobacco revenue is the high taxes has moved many regular smokers to the contraband route.

Which is the point I keep making in the legalization of weed debate. I doubt people who are used to consuming the weed the way they currently are will want to submit to the type of government regulations we see from tobacco and alcohol sales.

[Mighty AC]

Finance minister Sorbara (under the supervision of John Lacey) commissioned a review of liquor distribution methods in 2005. The report concluded that some of the benefits of partial privatization would be greater consumer, convenience and choice via a competitive retail environment, a reduction in government-held investment risk while simultaneously increasing its annual revenues by $200 million.

From the last page of John Lacey's intro letter to the report. (page 3 - http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/consultations/basr/basr_final_report_en.pdf)

In conjunction with our advisors, we have carefully weighed the financial implications of this

strategy. We conservatively estimate that, following a transition period, this plan would produce at

least $200 million more government revenue than the government currently receives from the

beverage alcohol system. This additional revenue could be enough, for example, to build a new 300-

bed hospital each year

...

After 78 years, action is long overdue. It is time to transform Ontario’s beverage alcohol system. I

close with what I believe are the real outcomes of our recommendations:

1. the consumer would get greater convenience and choice and would benefit from a

competitive retail environment;

2. the government would remove itself from investment risk while increasing its annual

revenues;

3. Ontario would continue to benefit from sound social responsibility practices; and

4. the existing commercial inequities would have been materially addressed.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Boges]

Apparently, finance minister Sorbara (under the supervision of John Lacey) commissioned a review of liquor distribution methods in 2005. The report concluded that some of the benefits of partial privatization would be greater consumer, convenience and choice via a competitive retail environment, a reduction in government-held investment risk while simultaneously increasing its annual revenues by $200 million.

From the last page of John Lacey's intro letter to the report. (page 3 - http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/consultations/basr/basr_final_report_en.pdf)

Wow that certainly never happened. :-/

I think your theory is correct that like other public service unions the LCBO Union is strong enough to hold the government's hand here.